This paragraph has only one sentence which has 1 main clause and 5 embedded subordinate clauses. Here’s a simplified structure (with phrases labeled):

“Among other convictions formed in my common presence during my responsible, peculiarly composed life”

Out of the many beliefs I’ve developed throughout my consciously structured life

“there is one such also—an indubitable conviction”

there is one more—an absolutely certain belief

“that always and everywhere on the earth, among people of every degree of development of understanding”

that no matter where you are or who the person is, regardless of intelligence level

“and of every form of manifestation of the factors which engender in their individuality all kinds of ideals”

and regardless of how their personality expresses what they consider to be ideals

“there is acquired the tendency… to pronounce aloud or mentally… that definite utterance…”

people universally tend to recite—aloud or silently—a specific phrase

“understandable to every even quite illiterate person”

which even totally uneducated people can understand

“which… has been formulated variously… and in our day is formulated…”

whose wording has changed over time, and today is said as:

“In the name of the Father and of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

(you know the quote)

He is stating that:

Among the many beliefs he holds—formed through years of self-observation and inner work—there’s one he is certain of:
Wherever you go on Earth, no matter the culture, intellect, or background, people almost always begin something new by reciting a sacred or formal phrase.
In the present era, that phrase is “In the name of the Father… Amen.”

• He begins not with a thesis, but with a psychological observation
  → This is not “a book that explains,” but a mindset entering device

• The sentence overloads working memory
  → It forces the reader to stop automatic reading
  → You can't skim this—it jams up your normal process, which is exactly the point

• “Common presence” and “peculiarly composed life” signal self-remembering
  → He is not just a narrator; he is a structured self in a deliberate act of transmission

• The final quote is liturgical, but also mechanical
  → People use formulas to mark beginnings—yet do they remember themselves when they say them?

This paragraph is a single sentence. Its structure stacks dependent clauses and modifiers around a single action: he begins by pronouncing an utterance. The rest elaborates the manner, origin, and significance of that act.

• Main action: “I begin by pronouncing this utterance”

• How? Aloud, distinctly, with a “wholly-manifested-intonation”

• What enables this? Data rooted in him, formed during youth and matured in responsible life

• Why mention the Toulousites? To invoke a historical or symbolic standard of authentic expression

• “That is why I now, also, setting forth on this venture quite new for me, namely, authorship”
  → I’m beginning something new—writing a book.

• “begin by pronouncing this utterance…”
  → I start the process with a deliberate vocal statement

• “with a full, ‘wholly-manifested-intonation’”
  → not casually, but with deep feeling and presence

• “from data already formed and thoroughly rooted in me…”
  → because of internal qualities shaped by earlier experiences

• “formed in the nature of man… during preparatory and responsible life”
  → such traits develop across a human’s youth and adult growth

He’s not just writing—he’s transmitting something deeper. And he begins with a sacred utterance, voiced with his whole being. That ability, he claims, comes only through long years of preparation and maturity. His act of speech is not performance—it’s the audible fruit of self-development.

• He treats speech as initiation.
  → This isn’t just a preface—it’s a ritual gesture loaded with inner meaning.

• The voice is a diagnostic tool.
  → He’s suggesting that tone reveals one’s entire life journey.

• He implies developmental thresholds.
  → Only those who’ve passed through 'preparatory' and 'responsible' life stages can speak with this fullness.

• “Wholly-manifested-intonation” is invented, but feels precise.
  → A made-up phrase that somehow sounds ancient, clinical, and sacred all at once.

“And so, Hassein, in view of all I have said,”

Given everything I’ve explained so far, Hassein,

“you can now, I think, quite clearly understand”

I believe it should now be clear to you

“why I then decided without any hesitation”

why I made the decision immediately and with confidence

“to make the first stop of the ship Karnak just on the planet Earth.”

to have our spaceship’s first destination be Earth, specifically

He is stating that:

Beelzebub chose Earth as their first stop because of everything he previously explained, and he made that decision without doubt.

• He begins by anchoring the statement in prior logic—not emotional reasoning or random interest, but continuity with his cosmic narrative.

• The phrase “without any hesitation” is striking—especially given the vast scale and weight of the journey, this assertive immediacy underscores the importance of Earth in Beelzebub’s mind.

• “Just on the planet Earth” sounds almost surgical—as though it’s the pinpoint focus of a larger mission. This marks Earth as anomalous, not incidental.

“In any case I have begun just thus,”

Anyway, I’ve started in this particular manner, however odd it may seem

“and as to how the rest will go”

and regarding how the rest of this will unfold

“I can only say meanwhile,”

for now, all I can really say is

“as the blind man once expressed it,”

in the words of a blind man,

“‘we shall see.’”

"we'll find out eventually"—a humorous contradiction

He is stating that:

He’s started the story in a particular way, and admits with some humor that the rest is uncertain—for both narrator and reader.

• He begins with an ironic shrug—openly admitting the oddity of how the tale starts, without apology.

• He quotes a blind man saying “we shall see”—a paradoxical joke, showing early on that language, logic, and wisdom will be played with, not followed conventionally.

• The narrator breaks the illusion of omniscience—suggesting that the act of storytelling is a discovery process even for him.

“First and foremost, I shall place my own hand, so to say, on my heart”

To begin sincerely, I must acknowledge something personal and important

“and frankly confess that I myself also, for instance, in early youth when I began to write,”

and openly admit that I too, as a young writer,

“stuffed various kinds of nonsense into the literary works I then composed,”

wrote all sorts of nonsense into the works I created

“and moreover, with an absolutely clear conscience,”

and did so with complete sincerity, unaware it was misguided

“because, from the very beginning, I put my trust in the honesty of those around me,”

because I believed the people around me were honest and trustworthy

“and, thanks to this, failing to notice that in their attitudes towards me and my work”

and therefore did not see that their responses to me and my writing

“they were guided by their egotistic, or, it would still be better to say, their ‘Hasnamussian’ impulses,”

were driven by selfish—or worse, spiritually destructive—motives

“I then very seriously undertook to do what, as I now see, was exceedingly harmful to myself.”

and I earnestly committed myself to a path that I now recognize was quite damaging to me

“And so, Hassein, I wish to begin just with the admission of this mistake,”

So now, Hassein, I start by admitting this error openly

“as I am no longer as I was when I wrote those ‘weighty’—though now, alas!—useless pieces,”

since I’m no longer the same person who wrote those serious but ultimately worthless works

“which were not perhaps quite ‘literary,’ but weighty and bulky tomes.”

they may not have been true literature, but they were long and heavy volumes

He is stating that:

In his youth, Beelzebub earnestly created writings filled with nonsense, misled by the self-serving motives of others whom he trusted. He now begins his new effort by confessing that past mistake, recognizing how harmful it was to himself and mocking the self-importance of his earlier “weighty” but useless works.

• He begins with confession—not with authority or wisdom, but with vulnerability, showing the Fourth Way principle of conscious repentance.

• He uses “Hasnamussian”—a loaded term implying spiritual misalignment, to describe the motives of others and the gravity of his own error.

• He mocks his earlier seriousness—calling them “weighty and bulky tomes,” poking fun at ego-laden intellectual output.

“However that may be, I begin. . . .”

Regardless of everything else, I’m starting now…

“But begin with what?”

But what should I actually start with?

“Oh, the devil!”

Exclamation of frustration or panic

“Will there indeed be repeated that same exceedingly unpleasant and highly strange sensation”

Is that bizarre and distressing mental state going to return?

“which it befell me to experience when about three weeks ago I was composing in my thoughts”

which I went through about three weeks ago when I was mentally drafting ideas

“the scheme and sequence of the ideas destined by me for publication”

the planned structure of ideas I meant to publish

“and did not know then how to begin either?”

and even then, I couldn’t figure out how to start

“This sensation then experienced I might now formulate in words only thus:”

I can now describe that feeling in one way:

“‘the-fear-of-drowning-in-the-overflow-of-my-own-thoughts.’”

A coined phrase to express being overwhelmed by internal chaos

He is stating that:

He wants to begin, but is seized by the same paralyzing overwhelm he experienced before—a fear of mental overflow, which he now labels with a single, stark phrase.

• He begins with action—but no object—“I begin,” then immediately questions what that even means. This sets up a recursive loop of doubt and effort.

• He narrates his own hesitation—turning the reader into a co-witness of creative paralysis, not a passive consumer.

• He coins a psychological state—“the-fear-of-drowning-in-the-overflow-of-my-own-thoughts”—which merges metaphor, pathology, and poetic clarity. It’s a diagnosis many readers may recognize in themselves.

“To stop this undesirable sensation”

To get rid of the overwhelming feeling he was experiencing

“I might then still have had recourse to the aid of that maleficent property”

I could have turned to a harmful trait as a coping mechanism

“existing also in me, as in contemporary man”

which is found in both myself and people of modern times

“which has become inherent in all of us”

that has become a built-in part of our nature

“and which enables us, without experiencing any remorse of conscience whatever,”

and which lets us act without any sense of guilt or moral discomfort

“to put off anything we wish to do ‘till tomorrow.’”

to postpone tasks with the excuse that we’ll do them later

He is stating that:

He could have avoided facing his unpleasant mental state by falling back on the deeply ingrained human habit of procrastination—a habit so normalized that it doesn’t even trigger guilt.

• He begins by implicating himself—not as an exception to human weakness, but as fully embedded in it.

• He calls procrastination “maleficent”—not trivial, but actively harmful, corrupting the will to act.

• He notes the absence of remorse—a chilling detail that highlights how far the habit has penetrated our conscience.

• The phrase “till tomorrow” is loaded—a casual idiom masking a metaphysical rot in modern man.

“I could then have done this very easily because before beginning the actual writing, it was assumed that there was still lots of time;”

I thought I had time to spare, so it would have been easy to delay.

“but this can now no longer be done,”

But now I can’t put it off any longer.

“and I must, without fail, as is said, ‘even though I burst,’ begin.”

I have no choice—I must begin, no matter the pressure.

“But with what indeed begin … ?”

But what should I even begin with?

“Hurrah! … Eureka!”

A mock exclamation—he pretends to have found inspiration.

“Almost all the books I have happened to read in my life have begun with a preface.”

Most books he’s read start with a preface.

“So in this case I also must begin with something of the kind.”

So he’ll begin with something similar—sort of.

“I say ‘of the kind,’ because…”

He clarifies that it won’t be a typical preface.

“from the moment I began to distinguish a boy from a girl, I have always done everything... not as it is done by other, like myself, biped destroyers of Nature’s good.”

From early childhood, he’s done things differently than other humans—who he describes harshly as destroyers.

“Therefore, in writing now I ought… to begin not as any other writer would.”

So now he feels obligated to begin in a way unique to himself.

He is stating that:

Though he once assumed he had time to delay, he now must begin—urgently and uniquely. While many books start with a preface, he insists on beginning differently, as he has always lived differently from others.

• He stages the act of beginning as a performance—hesitation, explosion, parody, and declaration all play out before the book even properly starts.

• He mocks his own moment of inspiration—“Hurrah! … Eureka!” is both celebratory and ironic, a sign that insight isn’t always grand or clear.

• He roots his style in a lifelong ethic—his refusal to follow convention is not mere eccentricity but principle, tracing back to childhood.

• He characterizes humanity in harsh terms—“biped destroyers of Nature’s good”—even while locating himself within that species.

• The paragraph builds without argument—it spirals and pivots emotionally, not logically, modeling the kind of thinking that values **being** over structure.

“In any case, instead of the conventional preface I shall begin quite simply with a Warning.”

He will not follow standard literary practice; he will start with a cautionary note.

“Beginning with a Warning will be very judicious of me,”

This is a wise and appropriate way for him to begin.

“if only because it will not contradict any of my principles, either organic, psychic, or even ‘willful,’”

It aligns with every part of his being—bodily, mental, and volitional.

“and will at the same time be quite honest—of course, honest in the objective sense,”

And it will also be genuinely truthful—not just personally sincere, but factually so.

“because both I myself and all others who know me well, expect with indubitable certainty…”

He and those close to him are completely sure that…

“that owing to my writings there will entirely disappear in the majority of readers…”

Most readers will immediately lose something because of what he writes…

“all the ‘wealth’ they have… in the form of quieting notions evoking only naive dreams…”

They will lose their comforting beliefs, soothing but childish fantasies…

“and also beautiful representations of their lives at present as well as of their prospects in the future.”

…along with the idealized stories they tell themselves about their current lives and what’s to come.

He is stating that:

He will open with a Warning instead of a preface, because it aligns with his principles and reflects his honest understanding that his writing will dismantle the comforting illusions people hold about themselves, their lives, and their future.

• He treats a “Warning” as more truthful than a preface—a reversal of literary convention that signals we are entering dangerous territory.

• He categorizes his principles—“organic, psychic, and willful”—as if selfhood is a multidimensional organism.

• He anticipates destruction—not transformation or awakening, but the loss of cherished delusions.

• The Warning is personal and surgical—it’s not just a general caution, but a forecast of individual psychological consequence.

• He calls this destruction honest—framing truth not as pleasant, but as invasive and necessary.

“Professional writers usually begin such introductions with an address to the reader”

Writers tend to start with a direct message aimed at the audience.

“full of all kinds of bombastically magniloquent and so to say ‘honeyed’ and ‘inflated’ phrases.”

They use exaggerated, showy, and sweet-sounding language—essentially puffery.

“Just in this alone I shall follow their example and also begin with such an address”

I will copy them in this one respect: I will also address the reader at the start.

“but I shall try not to make it very ‘sugary’ as they usually do”

However, I will avoid making it overly sweet or flattering like theirs.

“owing particularly to their evil wiseacring”

Because their clever-sounding language often masks deceptive or insincere intent.

“by which they titillate the sensibilities of the more or less normal reader.”

They stir or manipulate the feelings of the average person through this rhetorical flattery.

He is stating that:

Although he will conform to the writerly custom of opening with an address to the reader, he will do so without indulging in the typical manipulative sweetness that he believes others use to seduce the reader’s emotions through false cleverness.

• He begins by mocking the very convention he then adopts— creating a self-reflexive loop of irony that primes the reader to notice literary manipulation itself.

• He accuses professional writers of “evil wiseacring”— suggesting that their rhetorical sweetness isn’t just a style, but a form of ethical corruption aimed at emotional control.

• His use of “titillate the sensibilities” is surgical— exposing that what’s often taken as warm readerly engagement is in fact a calculated excitation of the reader’s vanity or emotional laziness.

• This paragraph performs its own critique— he imitates the literary convention while simultaneously undermining it, enacting his larger goal of waking the reader from unconscious habits.

“Thus …”

A transition word preparing the reader for the promised formal address.

“My dear, highly honored, strong-willed and of course very patient Sirs,”

He begins with exaggerated deference and flattery toward male readers.

“and my much-esteemed, charming, and impartial Ladies”

He continues with similar praise for female readers, again overly elaborate.

“—forgive me, I have omitted the most important—”

A mock-apology that sets up the twist, claiming to have forgotten something crucial.

“and my in no wise hysterical Ladies!”

The supposed compliment ironically calls attention to the stereotype of female hysteria, thus violating the tone of politeness and exposing the manipulative power of flattery.

He is stating that:

Here is the reader-address he promised: an exaggerated, ironic greeting that uses mock-flattery to reveal how such conventions often conceal subtle insult or manipulation—especially in gendered form.

• He begins with an over-the-top, formal salutation— but quickly lets the reader know he is mocking the convention rather than honoring it.

• The sudden twist about “hysterical” women— both exposes and critiques cultural biases embedded in literary politeness.

• The paragraph performs its own deconstruction— what seems like etiquette becomes a scalpel, slicing into habit, expectation, and unconscious reactions.

• This is both greeting and provocation— Gurdjieff initiates a style of address that refuses to let the reader feel comfortable or superior, even for a moment.

“I have the honor to inform you that although ... I am now about to write books”

He formally announces his late-life decision to begin writing.

“yet during the whole of my life I have never written not only not books or various what they are called ‘instructive-articles’”

He’s never authored books or essays—even those meant to teach.

“but also not even a letter in which it has been unfailingly necessary to observe what is called ‘grammaticality,’”

He hasn’t even written a properly grammatical letter.

“and in consequence … I am constrained to write not at all as ordinary ‘patented-writers’ do”

Therefore, he must write in his own unorthodox style, not like professional writers.

“to the form of whose writing you have in all probability become as much accustomed as to your own smell.”

He believes the reader is so used to conventional writing that it’s like a personal odor—always present but unnoticed.

He is stating that:

Although he is now undertaking to write books, he has never written anything before—not even a proper letter—and has no training in conventional writing or grammar. As a result, his style will be very different from the professional writing the reader is used to—so familiar, in fact, that they take it for granted, like their own smell.

• He begins with a ceremonial tone— “I have the honor to inform you”—but immediately undercuts it with a confession of total inexperience.

• He negates himself repeatedly— using double and triple negatives to stress how profoundly outside the literary norm he stands.

• The term “patented-writers”— ridicules credentialed professionals, suggesting that their authority is manufactured and standardized.

• He attacks the reader’s conditioning— implying that their sense of what “good writing” is has become unconscious, like their own scent.

• This is an anti-style manifesto— not just a warning of what's to come, but a direct psychological confrontation.

“In my opinion the trouble with you, in the present instance,”

I believe your specific problem right now is as follows.

“is perhaps chiefly due to the fact that while still in childhood,”

The root cause likely began in your early developmental years.

“there was implanted in you and has now become ideally well harmonized with your general psyche,”

You received a mechanism that now fits perfectly into your overall psychology.

“an excellently working automatism for perceiving all kinds of new impressions,”

This mechanism allows you to automatically take in new stimuli without effort.

“thanks to which ‘blessing’ you have now, during your responsible life, no need of making any individual effort whatsoever.”

This so-called “blessing” means that as an adult, you no longer engage conscious will when encountering new information.

He is stating that:

The reader’s difficulty arises from a childhood-implanted mechanism that makes the perception of new things automatic and effortless—so automatic, in fact, that they’ve lost the need to exert conscious effort, which he implies is essential for genuine understanding.

• He begins with psychological confrontation— identifying the reader’s conditioning as a core obstacle to real engagement.

• The word “blessing” is ironic— the very trait that makes modern functioning efficient is what blocks deeper perception.

• He links passivity to childhood— suggesting that education and early influence implant a mechanism that persists unconsciously into adulthood.

• This is the shift into Fourth Way territory— effort, consciousness, and the exposure of automaticity as the enemy of inner work.

“Speaking frankly, I inwardly personally discern the center of my confession”

Honestly, I recognize deep within myself what the real issue is.

“not in my lack of knowledge of all the rules and procedures of writers”

It’s not simply that I don’t know the techniques of writing.

“but in my non-possession of what I have called the ‘bon ton literary language’”

The real problem is that I don’t have the socially accepted polished way of writing.

“infallibly required in contemporary life not only from writers but also from every ordinary mortal.”

This expected style is demanded not just from writers, but from everyone in modern society.

“As regards the former ... I am not greatly disturbed.”

I’m not really concerned about lacking formal training or knowledge of writerly rules.

He is stating that:

The real difficulty he confesses isn’t ignorance of writerly technique, but his lack of the socially expected, refined style of expression that modern life demands from everyone. And he doesn’t care much about the technical part—only the imposed stylistic conformity bothers him.

• He begins with self-disclosure— but quickly reframes the “confession” as a deeper insight into cultural conditioning.

• He challenges the reader’s assumption— that literary skill is primarily about technical rules rather than stylistic conformity.

• He links writing style to social obedience— implying that even ordinary people are pressured to perform a certain kind of linguistic decorum.

• He dismisses the technical rules— revealing that his concern is not with breaking writing conventions but with breaking unconscious social norms.

“And I am not greatly disturbed on this account”

I’m not really worried about my lack of writing skill.

“because such ‘ignorance’ has already now become in the life of people also in the order of things.”

Because ignorance of writing norms is now common and accepted in modern life.

“Such a blessing arose and now flourishes everywhere on Earth”

This condition has spread worldwide and is ironically seen as a good thing.

“thanks to that extraordinary new disease ...”

He blames a figurative new disease for the widespread decline in thoughtful authorship.

“especially the majority of those persons from among all the three sexes fall ill”

This affliction targets most people, regardless of gender—a satirical swipe at modern identity conventions.

“who sleep with half-open eyes and whose faces are in every respect fertile soil for the growth of every kind of pimple.”

Describing the afflicted as semi-conscious and vain—concerned with appearance but not depth.

“This strange disease is manifested by this...”

Here is how this ‘disease’ shows itself in practice.

“if the invalid is somewhat literate and his rent is paid for three months in advance”

If the person has basic literacy and a little financial breathing room...

“he (she or it) unfailingly begins to write either some ‘instructive article’ or a whole book.”

...they inevitably start writing unrequested, usually shallow literature.

He is stating that:

He’s not troubled by lacking literary education because it’s now normal—thanks to a modern “disease” afflicting half-conscious, vain people who, given a bit of literacy and security, compulsively produce superficial writing under the illusion of offering instruction.

• He begins by normalizing ignorance— flipping the cultural narrative that values literacy and skill.

• He diagnoses a “literary disease”— using satire to expose how superficial motivations now drive writing.

• His description of the afflicted is grotesque— merging physical caricature with spiritual critique (vanity, sleep, unconsciousness).

• He reduces modern authorship to a symptom— not a calling or talent, but a compulsive behavior rooted in false security and ego inflation.

• He uses “he (she or it)”— subtly mocking gender conventions while emphasizing depersonalization in this social trend.

“Well knowing about this new human disease and its epidemical spread on Earth,”

Knowing full well how widespread this modern writing disorder has become,

“I, as you should understand, have the right to assume”

I believe it’s reasonable for me to think

“that you have acquired, as the learned ‘medicos’ would say, ‘immunity’ to it,”

that you, unlike most, are resistant to this trend—immune, as doctors would put it.

“and that you will therefore not be palpably indignant at my ignorance of the rules and procedures of writers.”

And so you won’t be obviously upset by my lack of writing know-how.

“This understanding of mine bids me inwardly to make the center of gravity of my warning”

This belief makes me feel I should focus my warning on the following point:

“my ignorance of the literary language.”

I don’t use the expected polished, proper style of writing.

He is stating that:

Since the reader is presumably immune to the modern disease of shallow authorship, they will not be offended by his lack of technical literary training. Therefore, the real thing to warn them about is his departure from the standard, expected literary tone.

• He begins by treating writing as a public health issue— using disease metaphors to frame stylistic conformity as a mass affliction.

• He flatters the reader while testing them— assuming their superiority to the “infected,” while setting a standard they must live up to.

• He shifts the danger zone— from breaking formal literary rules to violating stylistic expectations, which are deeper and more culturally ingrained.

• The phrase “center of gravity of my warning”— gives unusual weight to the stylistic dissonance he’s about to unleash, hinting that the shock lies not in structure but in tone.

“In self-justification, and also perhaps to diminish the degree of the censure in your waking consciousness”

To excuse myself and reduce how much you consciously judge me,

“of my ignorance of this language indispensable for contemporary life,”

for not knowing the polished literary language expected in today’s world,

“I consider it necessary to say, with a humble heart and cheeks flushed with shame,”

I feel obliged to say this—pretending sincere humility and embarrassment,

“that although I too was taught this language in my childhood,”

that I did in fact learn this literary style as a child,

“and even though certain of my elders who prepared me for responsible life,”

and though some adults who raised me for adulthood,

“constantly forced me ‘without sparing or economizing’ any intimidatory means”

used every method of pressure and fear available,

“to ‘learn by rote’ the host of various ‘nuances’”

to memorize all the subtle stylistic rules,

“which in their totality compose this contemporary ‘delight,’”

which make up what people now call refined or beautiful expression,

“yet, unfortunately of course for you,”

still—sorry for your sake,

“of all that I then learned by rote, nothing stuck”

none of it stayed with me,

“and nothing whatsoever has survived for my present activities as a writer.”

and I retained absolutely none of it for my current writing.

He is stating that:

Though he was taught the refined literary style as a child—under pressure and rote instruction—none of it stayed with him. He offers this as an apology, but with exaggerated humility, suggesting the whole system of forced stylistic conformity is hollow and absurd.

• He begins with mock-humility— using shame theatrically to expose how ridiculous the social expectation is.

• He critiques rote learning— pointing out that memorizing “nuances” under intimidation results in nothing lasting or meaningful.

• The term “delight” is in quotes— turning what society praises into a target of ridicule.

• He weaponizes failure— making his inability to conform an intentional stance rather than a shortcoming.

• The apology is a decoy— the paragraph appears conciliatory but is actually confrontational in spirit.

“And nothing stuck, as it was quite recently made clear to me,”

It turns out, I finally learned why none of it stayed with me.

“not through any fault of mine, nor through the fault of my former respected and non-respected teachers,”

It wasn’t my fault or even my teachers’ fault—whether I liked them or not.

“but this human labor was spent in vain owing to one unexpected and quite exceptional event”

All their effort was wasted due to a rare and unforeseeable incident.

“which occurred at the moment of my appearance on God’s Earth,”

It happened right when I was born.

“and which was—as a certain occultist well known in Europe explained to me after a very minute what is called ‘psycho-physico-astrological’ investigation—”

And, according to a well-known European occultist who did a highly detailed esoteric reading...

“that at that moment, through the hole made in the windowpane by our crazy lame goat,”

...a hole in the window made by our mad limping goat...

“there poured the vibrations of sound which arose in the neighbor’s house from an Edison phonograph,”

...allowed music from the neighbor’s phonograph to pour into the room,

“and the midwife had in her mouth a lozenge saturated with cocaine of German make,”

...and the midwife was sucking a lozenge soaked in German cocaine,

“and moreover not ‘Ersatz,’”

...and it was the real thing—not a cheap substitute.

“and was sucking this lozenge to these sounds without the proper enjoyment.”

...and she was doing this without even enjoying the experience properly.

He is stating that:

The reason none of his early literary training remained with him wasn’t due to any human failing, but to a surreal and astrologically-significant event at birth involving chaotic external influences, as diagnosed by an occultist. The paragraph exaggerates absurdity to the point of parody, undermining the idea of a logical or noble cause for literary failure.

• He begins with mock-exoneration— clearing himself and his teachers of blame, then shifting it to cosmic absurdity.

• He invokes an occult “investigation”— parodying the authority of mystics and pseudo-science alike.

• The goat, the phonograph, and the cocaine— form a surreal chain of causality meant to bewilder and amuse.

• The lozenge detail— is exaggerated to the point of grotesque comedy, especially the note that it was “not Ersatz.”

• He dramatizes absurdity to expose deeper critique— perhaps of mechanistic cause-seeking, misplaced guilt, or the arbitrary failure of cultural indoctrination.

“Besides from this event, rare in the everyday life of people,”

In addition to that unusual birth-related event,

“my present position also arose because later on in my preparatory and adult life”

My current way of being also developed due to things that happened as I grew up,

“—as, I must confess, I myself guessed after long reflections according to the method of the German professor, Herr Stumpsinschmausen—”

—which I figured out after long thought, using the supposed method of a humorous, possibly fictional German academic—

“I always avoided instinctively as well as automatically and at times even consciously, that is, on principle,”

I consistently avoided—sometimes by reflex, sometimes intentionally—

“employing this language for intercourse with others.”

using this refined literary language when communicating with people.

“And from such a trifle, and perhaps not a trifle,”

And from that small cause—or maybe not so small—

“I manifested thus again thanks to three data which were formed in my entirety during my preparatory age,”

my behavior today was shaped by three core influences from my early years,

“about which data I intend to inform you a little later in this same first chapter of my writings.”

and I will describe those three data later in this chapter.

He is stating that:

Aside from a strange birth incident, his present rejection of literary style also stems from a lifelong tendency—sometimes unconscious, sometimes deliberate—to avoid using it. This tendency was shaped by three foundational influences formed in childhood, which he promises to explain later in the chapter.

• He begins by linking comedy with confession— combining the absurd (goat, phonograph) with the serious (lifelong avoidance).

• He mocks academic self-analysis— by citing “Herr Stumpsinschmausen,” a fictional German professor, as his methodological guide.

• He portrays his avoidance as multidimensional— sometimes instinctive, sometimes rational, sometimes principled, suggesting depth of will and being.

• He introduces the “three data”— hinting at a structured inner psychology that will later be revealed, suggesting cosmological or developmental significance.

• This paragraph bridges tones— moving from comedic to esoteric, and from surface mannerism to deep cause.

“However that may have been,”

Regardless of all that came before,

“yet the real fact, illuminated from every side like an American advertisement,”

The undeniable truth, made glaringly obvious and unavoidable,

“and which fact cannot now be changed by any forces even with the knowledge of the experts in ‘monkey business,’”

—and not even tricksters or manipulators can undo it—

“is that although I, who have lately been considered by very many people as a rather good teacher of temple dances,”

Though I was recently known as a respectable teacher of sacred movement,

“have now become today a professional writer and will of course write a great deal”

I’ve become a full-time writer and will naturally write a lot,

“—as it has been proper to me since childhood whenever ‘I do anything to do a great deal of it’—”

Because since childhood, I’ve always done things extensively when I do them at all,

“nevertheless, not having, as you see, the automatically acquired and automatically manifested practice necessary for this,”

But I don’t have the automatic literary skill most writers develop,

“I shall be constrained to write all I have thought out in ordinary simple everyday language established by life,”

So I must write everything in plain, real-life speech,

“without any literary manipulations and without any ‘grammarian wiseacrings.’”

No artificial flourishes or grammar-based cleverness will be included.

He is stating that:

Though once known for teaching temple dances, he is now a writer—and will write prolifically, as is his way. However, lacking formal literary habit, he will use straightforward, life-based language without stylistic tricks or grammatical pretension.

• He begins with theatrical certainty— comparing the truth of his new role to a blinding advertisement, unavoidable and excessive.

• He mocks expertise and manipulation— evoking “monkey business” to reject the idea that cleverness could alter destiny.

• He confesses prolific output as a compulsion— rooted in his nature to do everything “in large measure.”

• He denies literary credentials— using that lack not as an apology, but as justification for authenticity.

• His language promise is radical— no literary games, no polished deceit, only direct, living expression.

“But the pot is not yet full!”

There is still an unresolved issue; things are not yet complete.

“For I have not yet decided the most important question of all—in which language to write.”

I haven’t yet settled the crucial matter: what language should I use?

“Although I have begun to write in Russian,”

I’ve started this work in Russian,

“nevertheless, as the wisest of the wise, Mullah Nassr Eddin, would say, in that language you cannot go far.”

But as Nassr Eddin would quip: Russian won’t take you very far.

“(Mullah Nassr Eddin ... ascribed to this Nassr Eddin.)”

He explains that Nassr Eddin is an Asian folk hero, similar to Uncle Sam or Till Eulenspiegel, associated with a wide range of folk wisdom stories.

He is stating that:

He hasn’t yet resolved which language to use, and while he’s started in Russian, he doubts its effectiveness—playfully quoting an Eastern folk sage to express this skepticism. He introduces this character, Nassr Eddin, as a cultural bridge between traditions of wisdom, hinting that the real issue may not be just linguistic, but philosophical.

• He begins by announcing incompleteness— a structural interruption that builds anticipation and signals a deeper layer of decision.

• He casts doubt on his chosen language— immediately challenging the foundation of the text-in-progress.

• He quotes a folkloric trickster— bypassing formal linguistic critique in favor of a paradoxical, intuitive voice.

• The cultural footnote on Nassr Eddin— expands the stage beyond Europe, aligning the text with oral, Eastern, and nonlinear wisdom traditions.

• The language dilemma becomes metaphysical— not just about words, but about worldview, audience, and the limits of expression itself.

“The Russian language, it cannot be denied, is very good.”

No one can say Russian is bad; it has value.

“I even like it, but . . . only for swapping anecdotes and for use in referring to someone’s parentage.”

I enjoy it—but only for telling stories and insulting people’s lineage.

“The Russian language is like the English,”

Russian is similar in function to English,

“which language is also very good,”

and English also has its virtues,

“but only for discussing in ‘smoking rooms,’ while sitting on an easy chair with legs outstretched on another,”

but it’s only suited for leisurely, elite environments,

“the topic of Australian frozen meat or, sometimes, the Indian question.”

for discussing trivial trade goods or abstract imperial politics.

“Both these languages are like the dish which is called in Moscow ‘Solianka,’”

Both languages resemble a soup that includes a chaotic mix of ingredients,

“and into which everything goes except you and me,”

everything can go into it—except anything personally real,

“in fact everything you wish, and even the ‘after dinner Cheshma’ of Sheherazade.”

they contain everything imaginable—even an exotic, veiled flourish from Arabian Nights.

* Cheshma means veil.

The word implies concealment—hinting that these languages mask meaning.

He is stating that:

Russian and English are both capable languages, but only within limited, culturally shallow contexts—jokes, gossip, idle elite chatter. They are overloaded like a messy stew, full of variety but lacking essence. Language, like the “Cheshma” (veil), can cover up meaning even while presenting a surface richness.

• He begins by praising the languages— only to sharply undercut them with sarcastic limitations.

• He connects language to class and empire— suggesting English is useful only in detached, colonial leisure.

• He uses a food metaphor— turning “Solianka” into a symbol of cluttered, impersonal verbosity.

• “Except you and me”— cuts to the heart of the matter: authenticity is missing from both languages.

• The “Cheshma” reference— implies that even exotic beauty, when veiled or out of context, becomes meaningless adornment.

“It must also be said that owing to all kinds of accidentally and perhaps not accidentally formed conditions of my youth,”

Because of various circumstances in my early life—some random, some possibly intentional,

“I have had to learn, and moreover very seriously and of course always with self-compulsion,”

I was required to study languages intensely, always pushing myself through effort,

“to speak, read, and write a great many languages,”

so that I could communicate in multiple languages across all modes,

“and to such a degree of fluency,”

and I achieved such command of them,

“that if in following this profession unexpectedly forced on me by Fate,”

that now, as a writer—a role thrust upon me by destiny,

“I decided not to take advantage of the ‘automatism’ which is acquired by practice,”

if I chose not to rely on automatic linguistic habit,

“then I could perhaps write in any one of them.”

I could consciously write in any language I know.

He is stating that:

He learned many languages under pressure during his youth—not easily, but with intense effort. He became so fluent that he could write in any of them, if he chose to do so consciously rather than by habit. This is offered as a backdrop to his decision not to rely on linguistic automatism in his present work.

• He begins with conditionality— blurring chance and design in the shaping of his early linguistic path.

• He emphasizes self-compulsion— framing learning not as gift, but as a necessity forged by will.

• He critiques automatic fluency— suggesting that real mastery is not about ease, but the ability to override habit.

• He redefines fluency— not as second-nature, but as the capacity for conscious application.

• He prepares for a language choice— grounded not in convenience or background, but in conscious decision-making.

“But if I set out to use judiciously this automatically acquired automatism which has become easy from long practice,”

If I chose to rely sensibly on the ingrained habit formed by long-term use,

“then I should have to write either in Russian or in Armenian,”

I would need to write in either Russian or Armenian,

“because the circumstances of my life during the last two or three decades have been such that”

since in the last 20–30 years of my life, conditions have made it so that

“I have had for intercourse with others to use, and consequently to have more practice in just these two languages”

I was required to speak with others in those two languages, giving me more experience in them,

“and to acquire an automatism in respect to them.”

and I developed unconscious fluency in them as a result.

“O the dickens! . . .”

Exclamation of vexation or frustration,

“Even in such a case, one of the aspects of my peculiar psyche, unusual for the normal man,”

Even with that plan, a strange part of my inner nature—which is not like most people’s—

“has now already begun to torment the whole of me.”

has already started to stir up conflict or discomfort throughout my being.

He is stating that:

He could easily write in Russian or Armenian due to long-term practice, but even choosing that practical route provokes discomfort from his own unique inner psychology, which resists the ease and predictability of automatism.

• He begins by proposing a logical choice— to write in the languages he knows best through repeated use.

• He frames fluency as “automatism”— reducing language skill to a kind of mechanical reflex.

• He signals frustration through an expletive— suggesting that even the rational path causes inner friction.

• He introduces a self-dividing psyche— one part that calculates practicality, another that suffers under routine.

• The “peculiar psyche” motif— reiterates a Gurdjieffian idea: that what is normal for most becomes an obstacle for the conscious man.

“And the chief reason for this unhappiness of mine in my almost already mellow age,”

The main cause of my discontent now, in my older years,

“results from the fact that since childhood”

comes from something that was embedded in me early in life,

“there was implanted in my peculiar psyche,”

specifically placed into my unique inner nature,

“together with numerous other rubbish also unnecessary for contemporary life,”

alongside many other worthless ideas no longer useful today,

“such an inherency as always and in everything automatically enjoins the whole of me”

a built-in tendency that compels my entire being, without thought,

“to act only according to popular wisdom.”

to follow what’s commonly accepted or conventional.

He is stating that:

In his later life, Gurdjieff feels a kind of suffering due to a psychic trait planted in childhood that causes him to act reflexively in alignment with common beliefs—an inherited behavioral script installed alongside other useless mental content.

• He begins by blaming unhappiness on inner compulsion— not outer failure, but a built-in pattern of behavior installed early in life.

• He describes inherited ideas as “rubbish”— rejecting the typical reverence for tradition or childhood teachings.

• “Popular wisdom” is exposed as a trap— a misleading name for automated conformity, not true insight.

• The term “enjoins the whole of me”— suggests complete systemic override, not partial influence.

• This is psychological determinism under critique— he dissects how early psychic implants rob adult agency.

“In the present case, as always in similar as yet indefinite life cases,”

In this situation—like other unclear or unresolved situations,

“there immediately comes to my brain”

a thought arises in my mind,

“—which is for me, constructed unsuccessfully to the point of mockery,”

—my brain, which I see as so badly designed it’s laughable,

“and is now as is said, ‘running through’ it—”

and this thought runs through my brain like a looped recording,

“that saying of popular wisdom which existed in the life of people of very ancient times,”

namely, a traditional piece of ancient folk advice,

“and which has been handed down to our day formulated in the following words:”

which is still remembered today in this form:

“‘every stick always has two ends.’”

Every situation has two sides or consequences—nothing is one-sided.

He is stating that:

When faced with uncertainty, his mind automatically produces an old proverb—“every stick always has two ends”—despite his awareness that this response is mechanical, rooted in a poorly functioning brain and ingrained popular wisdom inherited from ancient times.

• He begins by describing a reflex— a proverb that appears without conscious intention during ambiguous moments.

• He mocks his own brain— calling it a faulty construction that adds humor and self-deprecation to the account.

• The proverb is both a comfort and a curse— it illustrates inherited mental patterns he wishes to escape.

• He reveals cultural inheritance as inner machinery— popular wisdom acts like an automatic script, not a freely chosen insight.

• The folk phrase becomes a meta-commentary— the content ("two ends") reflects the form (duality between mechanical and conscious thought).

“In trying first to understand the basic thought and real significance hidden in this strange verbal formulation,”

When attempting to grasp the deeper meaning behind this unusual phrase,

“there must, in my opinion, first of all arise in the consciousness of every more or less sane-thinking man”

every reasonably sane person should begin by considering,

“the supposition that, in the totality of ideas on which is based and from which must flow a sensible notion of this saying,”

that the full framework behind the proverb contains a rational and coherent meaning,

“lies the truth, cognized by people for centuries,”

which preserves a long-understood truth,

“which affirms that every cause occurring in the life of man, from whatever phenomenon it arises,”

namely, that any cause—no matter where it comes from—

“as one of two opposite effects of other causes,”

is itself the product of a duality, the result of opposing causes,

“is in its turn obligatorily molded also into two quite opposite effects,”

and must itself produce two contrasting results,

“as for instance: if ‘something’ obtained from two different causes engenders light,”

e.g., if some combination of inputs produces light,

“then it must inevitably engender a phenomenon opposite to it, that is to say, darkness;”

then it will also, by necessity, produce its opposite: darkness,

“or a factor engendering in the organism of a living creature an impulse of palpable satisfaction”

or a cause that creates a clear feeling of satisfaction in a living being,

“also engenders without fail nonsatisfaction, of course also palpable,”

must also lead to an equally real sense of dissatisfaction,

“and so on and so forth, always and in everything.”

and this pattern holds true in all cases, universally.

He is stating that:

The saying “every stick has two ends” encodes an ancient insight: all causes in life are shaped by opposing forces and themselves produce opposites. This dynamic is not anecdotal—it is structural, universal, and always in effect.

• He begins with a mental discipline— demanding that understanding must begin in rational inner effort, not interpretation.

• He reframes a proverb as law— taking a common saying and treating it as a metaphysical equation.

• He makes opposition generative— showing that all creation is dual-structured and recursive.

• He loops causes into effects— and effects into further causes, each pair birthing another duality.

• He insists on universal polarity— making duality not just an idea, but a living architecture of reality.

“Adopting in the same given instance this popular wisdom formed by centuries and expressed by a stick,”

If I take seriously this old wisdom summed up in the symbol of the stick,

“which, as was said, indeed has two ends, one end of which is considered good and the other bad,”

which—again—always has one end that’s beneficial and one that’s not,

“then if I use the aforesaid automatism which was acquired in me thanks only to long practice,”

then using my practiced, habitual writing style,

“it will be for me personally of course very good,”

would be a great benefit to me personally,

“but according to this saying, there must result for the reader just the opposite;”

but by the logic of the saying, the reader would necessarily get the worse result,

“and what the opposite of good is, even every nonpossessor of haemorrhoids must very easily understand.”

and what “bad” means is so obvious, even someone without pain down there would get it.

He is stating that:

If he writes easily using his ingrained habits, it would benefit him—but, following the ancient law of dual outcomes, that would mean the reader gets the negative consequence. Therefore, he refuses to indulge in this ease at the reader’s expense.

• He begins by literalizing a metaphor— the stick’s two ends become a moral and energetic law.

• He equates writing ease with reader suffering— a radical inversion of standard authorial self-interest.

• The hemorrhoid joke grounds the metaphysics— even the “lowest” body pain becomes an epistemological reference point.

• He refuses to cheat the reader— invoking an ancient principle to justify his rejection of automatic fluency.

• This is reciprocal maintenance by implication— the balancing of effort between giver and receiver under cosmic law.

“Briefly, if I exercise my privilege and take the good end of the stick,”

In short, if I choose the easy or beneficial option for myself,

“then the bad end must inevitably fall ‘on the reader’s head.’”

then the downside necessarily affects the reader instead.

“This may indeed happen, because in Russian the so to say ‘niceties’ of philosophical questions cannot be expressed,”

This might actually happen, since Russian lacks the nuance needed to convey complex philosophical ideas,

“which questions I intend to touch upon in my writings also rather fully,”

and I plan to explore such questions in considerable detail,

“whereas in Armenian, although this is possible,”

even though Armenian could convey these subtleties,

“yet to the misfortune of all contemporary Armenians,”

but unfortunately for modern Armenian speakers,

“the employment of this language for contemporary notions has now already become quite impracticable.”

using Armenian for modern ideas is no longer realistic or functional.

He is stating that:

If he makes things easier for himself, the reader will suffer. Russian can’t carry the weight of his philosophical ideas, and although Armenian could, it’s now effectively obsolete for expressing modern concepts. This traps him between two inadequate tools, reinforcing the need to go beyond automatism.

• He begins by escalating the proverb— turning “two ends of a stick” into real consequences for the reader.

• He introduces a philosophical standard— language must be able to express “niceties,” not just basic concepts.

• He critiques Russian indirectly— by naming what it can’t do, rather than what it can.

• He mourns Armenian’s decline— not just linguistically, but culturally and practically.

• The linguistic impasse mirrors a deeper one— no natural, practiced option suffices; a new method must emerge.

“In order to alleviate the bitterness of my inner hurt owing to this,”

To ease the pain I feel about this situation,

“I must say that in my early youth, when I became interested in and was greatly taken up with philological questions,”

I should mention that during my youth, when I was deeply interested in language studies,

“I preferred the Armenian language to all others I then spoke, even to my native language.”

I considered Armenian superior—even to the language I was born into.

“This language was then my favorite chiefly because it was original”

It was my favorite mostly because it was unique,

“and had nothing in common with the neighboring or kindred languages.”

and didn’t resemble any nearby or related languages.

“As the learned ‘philologists’ say, all of its tonalities were peculiar to it alone,”

Experts in language say its tonal patterns were completely its own,

“and according to my understanding even then,”

and even back then I understood that,

“it corresponded perfectly to the psyche of the people composing that nation.”

it fit the psychological character of the Armenian people exactly.

He is stating that:

In his youth, during a philological phase, he favored Armenian above all other languages—including his native one—because of its unique structure and because he believed it matched the inner life of its people. Remembering this love helps ease his sorrow over its modern uselessness.

• He begins with emotional compensation— trying to counterbalance present disappointment with a personal memory of admiration.

• He links language to national psyche— treating linguistic form as a reflection of inner collective life.

• He cites experts, then overrides them— confirming philological uniqueness, then adding his own metaphysical insight.

• He sees language as more than a medium— it becomes a vessel of essence, identity, and soul resonance.

• His mourning is complex— not just about loss of usage, but about the disconnection between language and people.

“But the change I have witnessed in that language during the last thirty or forty years has been such,”

What I’ve seen happen to that language over the past few decades is so extreme,

“that instead of an original independent language coming to us from the remote past,”

that what was once a unique, ancient tongue,

“there has resulted and now exists one,”

has turned into something else entirely,

“which though also original and independent,”

which still has some claim to originality and separateness,

“yet represents, as might be said, a ‘kind of clownish potpourri of languages,’”

yet can best be described as a laughable hodgepodge of mixed tongues,

“the totality of the consonances of which,”

the combined sounds of which,

“falling on the ear of a more or less conscious and understanding listener,”

when heard by someone with any degree of developed awareness,

“sounds just like the ‘tones’ of Turkish, Persian, French, Kurd, and Russian words”

come across as a chaotic blend of these various languages,

“and still other ‘indigestible’ and inarticulate noises.”

along with other sounds that are unpleasant and lacking clear form.

He is stating that:

The Armenian language, once distinct and rooted in antiquity, has degenerated over the past 30–40 years into a garbled mixture of surrounding languages and other unintelligible noises. What was once harmonized and pure is now fractured, audible as such to any listener with even moderate awareness.

• He begins with a tone of personal witness— emphasizing not academic change, but lived transformation over decades.

• He uses ridicule deliberately— the phrase “clownish potpourri” turns linguistic degradation into an absurd spectacle.

• He links auditory perception to consciousness— implying only the sensitive or awakened can hear the damage clearly.

• He invokes regional languages as distortions— not as enriching influences, but as contaminations of the original.

• The metaphor shifts from language to noise— suggesting a loss not only of structure, but of intelligibility and soul-resonance.

“Almost the same might be said about my native language, Greek,”

A similar problem exists with the Greek language I grew up speaking,

“which I spoke in childhood and, as might be said, the ‘taste of the automatic associative power of which’ I still retain.”

which I used as a child, and I still have a feel for how its associations work naturally,

“I could now, I dare say, express anything I wish in it,”

I could still say anything I want in Greek,

“but to employ it for writing is for me impossible,”

but it’s simply not an option for me to use it in writing,

“for the simple and rather comical reason that someone must transcribe my writings and translate them into the other languages.”

because someone else would need to write it out and turn it into other languages, which is impractical and even a little absurd,

“And who can do this?”

and—realistically—who is even capable of such a task?

He is stating that:

Although Greek is his native language and he still has a natural connection to it, he cannot write in it because no one is available or able to transcribe and translate his work into other languages from Greek. This makes it an impractical choice for his current writing needs.

• He begins with remembered fluency— emphasizing that Greek still lives in his memory through “taste” and association.

• He shifts from linguistic theory to real-world limitation— not a metaphysical problem, but a logistical one: no translator.

• He poses a rhetorical dead-end— ending on a question with no answer, reinforcing his isolation in expression.

• He adds humor in constraint— calling the situation “comical” as a release valve from despair.

• This is Fourth Way realism— not just inner depth, but outer necessity determines what can be done.

“It could assuredly be said that even the best expert of modern Greek would understand simply nothing”

One could confidently say that even the top scholar of modern Greek wouldn't understand anything

“of what I should write in the native language I assimilated in childhood,”

of what I might write using the Greek I learned as a child,

“because, my dear ‘compatriots,’ as they might be called,”

because my fellow Greeks—if that term still fits—

“being also inflamed with the wish at all costs to be like the representatives of contemporary civilization also in their conversation,”

were obsessed with sounding like modern, “civilized” people in their speech,

“have during these thirty or forty years treated my dear native language”

and over the past few decades have handled Greek,

“just as the Armenians, anxious to become Russian intelligentsia, have treated theirs.”

in the same way Armenians distorted their language to join Russian elite culture.

He is stating that:

The Greek he learned as a child has become unrecognizable, even to modern experts, because his countrymen have deliberately reshaped the language to imitate modern elites—just as Armenians once reshaped their own to fit into Russian intellectual society. The result is cultural and linguistic disconnection.

• He begins by rejecting linguistic expertise— even scholars can no longer access the version of Greek he once knew.

• He links language distortion to cultural mimicry— suggesting that desire to appear modern leads to self-betrayal.

• He uses irony with “compatriots”— implying distance from those who have changed so completely.

• He draws a cross-cultural comparison— connecting Armenian and Greek language decline through a shared motive: assimilation into a dominant intellectual class.

• He treats language as historical fidelity— and sees its break as not just technical, but ontological: the past and present no longer speak to one another.

“That Greek language, the spirit and essence of which were transmitted to me by heredity,”

The original Greek, passed down to me through lineage,

“and the language now spoken by contemporary Greeks,”

and the version now spoken by modern Greeks,

“are as much alike as, according to the expression of Mullah Nassr Eddin, ‘a nail is like a requiem.’”

are as similar as a metal spike is to a funeral chant—totally unrelated.

“What is now to be done?”

What can be done now in this situation?

“Ah . . . me! Never mind, esteemed buyer of my wiseacrings.”

Oh well. Don’t worry, dear reader who purchases my peculiar thoughts.

“If only there be plenty of French armagnac and ‘Khaizarian bastourma,’”

If I just have some strong French brandy and spicy dried meat,

“I shall find a way out of even this difficult situation.”

I’ll figure out a solution, even here.

“I am an old hand at this.”

I’ve done this sort of thing many times before.

“In life, I have so often got into difficult situations and out of them,”

I've encountered and escaped tough predicaments so many times,

“that this has become almost a matter of habit for me.”

that it’s practically second nature now.

He is stating that:

The Greek language he inherited is so different from modern Greek that comparison is absurd. Confronted with this and other absurdities, he relies on his long-practiced capacity to get through difficult situations—armed with humor, survival instincts, and a little bit of culinary comfort.

• He begins with hyperbolic contrast— “nail” versus “requiem” shows how radical the linguistic break is.

• He invokes Mullah Nassr Eddin— not just for comic effect, but as a vehicle for deeper absurdist truths.

• He makes despair theatrical— asking what to do, then brushing it off with comedic resignation.

• He uses food and drink as metaphysical tools— Armagnac and bastourma stand in for resilience and creative energy.

• He presents hardship as training— turning repetition of difficulty into a kind of evolutionary strength.

“Meanwhile in the present case, I shall write partly in Russian and partly in Armenian,”

For now, I’ll write using a mix of Russian and Armenian,

“the more readily because among those people always ‘hanging around’ me”

mainly because some of the people who are regularly near me,

“there are several who ‘cerebrate’ more or less easily in both these languages,”

can think and process ideas reasonably well in both Russian and Armenian,

“and I meanwhile entertain the hope that they will be able to transcribe and translate from these languages fairly well for me.”

and I’m hoping they can do a decent job helping me convert what I write into other usable forms.

He is stating that:

Since he’s surrounded by people who can think in Russian and Armenian, he will write using both, hoping these individuals can handle the needed transcriptions and translations well enough.

• He begins with resignation— the choice of languages isn’t ideal, just workable given his context.

• He frames help as circumstantial— relying not on qualified experts but on whoever is “hanging around.”

• He uses “cerebrate”— a scientific-sounding term that turns human thought into an impersonal function.

• He shows linguistic surrender— no language is sacred or sufficient, only instrumentally usable if translation is possible.

• He slips practical trust into philosophical uncertainty— the phrase “entertain the hope” adds doubt to the solution, hinting again at fragility.

“In any case I again repeat—”

Let me restate this once more—

“in order that you should well remember it,”

so that you truly commit this to memory,

“but not as you are in the habit of remembering other things”

and not in your usual shallow or forgetful way,

“and on the basis of which are accustomed to keeping your word of honor to others or to yourself—”

the kind of memory that leads to promises you routinely break, whether to others or to yourself,

“that no matter what language I shall use,”

that regardless of which language I write in,

“always and in everything, I shall avoid what I have called the ‘bon ton literary language.’”

I will consistently and completely avoid using the polished, fashionable language of conventional writers.

He is stating that:

Regardless of which language he writes in, he absolutely refuses to use the polished, pretentious language of fashionable literary circles. He urges the reader to remember this deeply—not in their usual forgetful way—but as a firm promise that defines his entire approach.

• He begins with an aggressive repetition— demanding a kind of remembrance that surpasses normal memory habits.

• He mocks bourgeois sincerity— especially the empty custom of giving one's “word of honor.”

• He makes literary style a moral issue— rejecting “bon ton” writing not for aesthetic reasons, but as a principle.

• He sets a tone of war against convention— the style of his book will violate literary norms deliberately.

• He invites you to remember differently— not passively, but with full inner attention and engagement.

“In this respect, the extraordinarily curious fact and one even in the highest degree worthy of your love of knowledge,”

Here’s a very strange fact—one highly deserving of your intellectual attention,

“perhaps even higher than your usual conception,”

possibly beyond what you normally think of as valuable knowledge,

“is that from my earliest childhood,”

is that from when I was very young,

“that is to say, since the birth in me of the need to destroy birds’ nests, and to tease my friends’ sisters,”

specifically, during that mischievous stage of early boyhood,

“there arose in my, as the ancient theosophists called it, ‘planetary body,’”

in my physical organism (called the ‘planetary body’ by theosophists),

“and moreover, why I don’t know, chiefly in the ‘right half,’”

especially (for some unknown reason) in the right side of my body,

“an instinctively involuntary sensation,”

a spontaneous, bodily feeling,

“which right up to that period of my life when I became a teacher of dancing,”

which continued up until I became a dance teacher,

“was gradually formed into a definite feeling,”

and this sensation slowly solidified into a clear emotional sense,

“and then, when thanks to this profession of mine I came in contact with many people of different ‘types,’”

and then, through working with many kinds of people,

“there began to arise in me also the conviction with what is called my ‘mind,’”

I mentally came to believe,

“that these languages are compiled by people, or rather ‘grammarians,’”

that languages are pieced together by people—specifically, grammarians,

“who are in respect of knowledge of the given language exactly similar to those biped animals”

whose understanding is as ridiculous as people

“whom the esteemed Mullah Nassr Eddin characterizes by the words: ‘All they can do is to wrangle with pigs about the quality of oranges.’”

whom Mullah Nassr Eddin mocked as fools arguing with pigs about something neither of them understands.

He is stating that:

From early in life, Gurdjieff felt a bodily suspicion of language as conventionally taught. This grew into a conscious belief, solidified through his professional experience, that grammarians do not truly understand the languages they construct. He ridicules them with an absurd image: men arguing with pigs about oranges.

• He begins with a bodily instinct— making his critique of language not mental but somatic and ancient.

• He uses Theosophical terms— linking his early sensation to esoteric anatomy (“planetary body”).

• He blends personal mischief with metaphysical insight— his early impulses (nests, teasing) are not dismissed, but contextualized.

• He positions experience above authority— discovering truth not in study, but through teaching diverse human types.

• He ridicules grammarians utterly— portraying them as absurd and irrelevant to actual language reality.

“This kind of people among us who have been turned into, so to say, ‘moths’”

People who now act destructively, like moths that eat away at things of value.

“destroying the good prepared and left for us by our ancestors and by time”

They ruin what was carefully developed and passed down through generations.

“have not the slightest notion and have probably never even heard of”

They are completely unaware of, and ignorant about, a basic truth.

“the screamingly obvious fact”

A truth so evident it should be impossible to miss.

“during the preparatory age, there is acquired in the brain functioning of every creature, and of man also”

In early development, every creature—including humans—acquires a specific brain function.

“a particular and definite property”

A clearly defined mental trait or capacity.

“the automatic actualization and manifestation of which the ancient Korkolans called the ‘law of association’”

This property is the automatic activity of associative thinking, known to the Korkolans as the “law of association.”

“the process of the mentation of every creature, especially man, flows exclusively in accordance with this law”

The way all beings, especially humans, think is entirely shaped by associations—they follow this law in how thoughts arise and connect.

He is stating that:

Many modern people recklessly destroy valuable cultural or spiritual inheritances without even being aware of the basic principle that governs human thought—the law of association. This law, anciently known and named, dictates that all thinking occurs by automatic links between ideas. Our ignorance of this process makes us vulnerable to manipulation and self-deception.

• He begins by insulting a whole class of people... likening them to moths who destroy value while having no comprehension of the systems they ruin.

• He drops a deeply metaphysical idea... that all thinking operates via a mechanical, automatic law of association, which modern minds neither know nor question.

• He attributes this knowledge to an ancient people... the “Korkolans,” as if preserving a secret wisdom forgotten by today’s civilization.

• The insult and the insight are inseparable... he implies that real thinking requires understanding the machinery of thought itself—something most lack.

“I have happened here accidentally to touch upon a question...”

I’ve unexpectedly brought up a topic that has recently become important to me.

“without waiting for the corresponding place predetermined by me...”

Even though I had planned to introduce this later, I’m bringing it up now.

“that axiom which has accidentally become known to me...”

A principle I discovered—perhaps serendipitously or without formal instruction.

“on Earth in the past it has been usual in every century...”

Historically, each era had this custom or expectation.

“every man... should be informed... that man has in general two kinds of mentation”

All people aspiring to be real thinkers should be taught early that humans have two basic modes of thinking.

“mentation by thought... in which words... are employed”

Thinking through language, which is always limited by relativity.

“mentation by form”

A nonverbal, image-based or essence-based form of cognition found in both humans and animals.

He is stating that:

Human beings have two basic modes of cognition: one through words, which are always relative, and one through inner forms or images, which is more universal and shared with animals. This should be part of early training for anyone striving to be truly conscious. Although he had planned to introduce this later, he finds it necessary to state it now due to its foundational importance.

• He begins with an aside... interrupting his own narrative to drop a key metaphysical insight early, which breaks with conventional structure.

• He elevates a “hobby” to cosmic importance... treating a personal preoccupation (mentation) as worthy of formal philosophical consideration.

• The concept of “mentation by form” is radical... suggesting that meaningful understanding is not necessarily verbal—and may be deeper when wordless.

• He attributes this idea to ancient Earth wisdom... implying that past centuries were wiser in teaching these basics to aspiring thinkers.

The second kind of mentation, that is, “mentation by form,”

The second type of thinking, called "mentation by form,"

by which, strictly speaking, the exact sense of all writing must be also perceived,

is the kind needed to truly grasp the precise meaning behind written words,

and after conscious confrontation with information already possessed,

and this happens only after intentionally comparing it with what one already knows,

be assimilated,

so that it can be absorbed or integrated,

is formed in people in dependence upon the conditions of geographical locality, climate, time,

and this type of thinking develops based on where a person lives—such as their region, climate, and era,

and, in general, upon the whole environment in which the arising of the given man has proceeded

and more broadly, on the entire environment that shaped that individual’s development,

and in which his existence has flowed up to manhood.

and the surroundings in which he has lived up through adulthood.

He is stating that:

Mentation by form is necessary for truly understanding anything written, but this kind of nonverbal understanding isn’t innate or fixed. It develops through a person’s life conditions—location, climate, era, and all formative environmental influences. Therefore, even deep understanding is relative to upbringing.

• He begins by redefining “reading”... not as decoding text, but as perceiving the *inner form* of what is written—something few modern readers are trained to do.

• He makes understanding a biological-cultural phenomenon... showing that even cognition isn’t universal, but rooted in the place and time of one’s growth.

• This merges psychology with geography... making deep reading an act shaped by climate, locality, and environment—not simply intelligence.

“Accordingly, in the brains of people of different races and conditions...”

As a result, individuals from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds...

“dwelling in different geographical localities...”

...living in diverse parts of the world...

“there are formed about one and the same thing or even idea...”

...develop unique interpretations or inner images of the same concept or object...

“a number of quite independent forms...”

...which are not shared but personal and distinct in nature...

“which during functioning, that is to say, association...”

...and when those forms are activated through associative thinking...

“evoke in their being some sensation or other...”

...they provoke an internal feeling or experience...

“which subjectively conditions a definite picturing...”

...that leads to a mental image formed in a uniquely personal way...

“and which picturing is expressed by this, that, or the other word...”

...and that image is then translated into a particular word...

“that serves only for its outer subjective expression.”

...but the word itself is just the surface representation of a private inner meaning.

He is stating that:

The same object or idea will be internally represented in different ways by people of different backgrounds. These representations are shaped by their environment and evoke distinct feelings and images, which are then expressed in words that reflect only the outer layer of this deeply subjective process.

• He begins with a relativizing move... showing that what we think of as “shared meaning” is in fact radically individualized and shaped by environment.

• He decouples words from their presumed universality... insisting that words merely cover over deeper, private inner forms.

• He implies communication is mostly miscommunication... because what one person means by a word may evoke a totally different form in another.

• This provides the cognitive basis for cultural misunderstanding... not as error, but as an inevitability of divergent inner conditioning.

“That is why each word, for the same thing or idea...”

This explains why a single word referring to an object or concept...

“almost always acquires for people of different geographical locality and race...”

...tends to take on a distinct meaning depending on where and how someone was raised.

“a very definite and entirely different so to say ‘inner-content.’”

...an internalized meaning or image that is not the same across people.

“if in the entirety of any man... a certain ‘form’ has been composed...”

If a person has developed a specific internal mental structure from his local experiences...

“this form evokes in him by association the sensation of a definite ‘inner content’...”

...that structure activates a particular feeling or image when triggered by association.

“and consequently of a definite picturing or notion...”

...which results in a personal, internal picture or concept.

“for the expression of which he employs one or another word...”

...which he then expresses using a particular word.

“which has eventually become habitual, and as I have said, subjective to him...”

...that word has become second nature, but is personally tailored to his own experience.

“then the hearer of that word... will always perceive... in quite another sense.”

...a listener who developed a different internal form will understand the same word in a different way.

He is stating that:

Words do not carry universal meaning. They are merely the outer signs of subjective inner forms shaped by local upbringing and life experience. As a result, even shared language often conceals fundamental misunderstandings between people, since each person’s “inner-content” for a given word may be entirely different.

• He begins with a linguistic bombshell... claiming that even basic communication is built on divergent inner meanings masked by shared vocabulary.

• He treats misunderstanding as inevitable... not accidental, but structurally baked into how people develop language internally.

• This reframes language as a veil over essence... showing how words conceal rather than reveal unless inner forms align.

• He subtly implicates all cultural dialogue... in an ongoing web of misinterpretation, due to differing developmental impressions.

“This fact... can... be very clearly established...”

You can easily see this for yourself, if you watch closely and fairly.

“when one is present at an exchange of opinions between persons...”

...in cross-cultural conversations or debates...

“cheerful and swaggering candidate for a buyer of my wiseacrings...”

He mockingly addresses the reader as someone bold (and perhaps naïve) enough to consider buying his book of odd wisdom.

“I am going to write not as ‘professional writers’ usually write but quite otherwise...”

He won’t follow literary conventions—you’ve been warned.

“reflect seriously and only then to undertake it...”

He urges the reader to consider whether they’re truly prepared before continuing.

“automatized to the ‘literary language of the intelligentsia’...”

If you’re too used to modern polished, academic language, you may not cope well with what’s coming.

“reading... might affect you very, very cacophonously...”

It may cause internal cognitive or emotional noise—disturbing your system.

“you might lose your … you know what?”

A comic pause—referring to both appetite and possibly libido or emotional vitality.

“psychic specificness... on seeing your neighbor, the brunette.”

He ends with a playful, slightly risqué jab: even your usual excitability might be dulled.

He is stating that:

It’s visibly obvious that people raised in different environments understand the same words differently. That being the case, he warns the reader directly that his own writing style is intentionally unlike anything typical. If you’re too accustomed to smooth, elegant prose, his raw, deliberate oddness may rattle your system, disturb your digestion, and even dampen your appetite—for food or romance.

• He begins by citing common experience... to validate his abstract claim about linguistic subjectivity.

• He then breaks the fourth wall... directly addressing the reader with sarcasm and parody, shifting tone midstream.

• He blurs language with physiology... warning that literary style can literally affect your hearing, digestion, and libido.

• The humor masks a real challenge... that his text demands effort, unlearning, and caution. It’s a spiritual initiation masquerading as a book.

“For such a possibility, ensuing from my language...”

If misinterpretation happens because of how I express myself...

“or rather, strictly speaking, from the form of my mentation...”

...more precisely, because of the unusual structure of my inner thinking...

“I am... already quite as convinced... as a ‘thoroughbred donkey’...”

...I am completely sure of this—like a donkey convinced he is justified in being stubborn.

“Now that I have warned you of what is most important...”

I’ve given you the key warning already...

“I am already tranquil about everything further.”

...so I’m no longer concerned with how the rest will be received.

“Even if any misunderstanding should arise...”

...even if confusion does come up from here on out...

“you alone will be entirely to blame...”

...that’s on you, not me.

“and my conscience will be as clear as... the ex-Kaiser Wilhelm’s.”

I’ll feel no guilt at all—perhaps as shamelessly clear as a dethroned emperor.

He is stating that:

Gurdjieff fully expects to be misunderstood, but insists this will be due to the unusual structure of his mind—not any error in writing. He feels no guilt about this. Since he’s warned the reader in advance, any resulting confusion is entirely their responsibility. He closes with sarcastic flair, comparing his guiltless conscience to that of a fallen autocrat.

• He begins by reframing miscommunication... not as a technical failure, but as a natural outcome of his “form of mentation.”

• He compares himself to a donkey... invoking animal stubbornness to highlight the depth of his conviction.

• He fully offloads blame onto the reader... a bold move that overturns traditional author-reader responsibility.

• The Wilhelm joke is razor-edged... equating his lack of remorse to that of a controversial historical figure—suggesting that even deluded conscience can feel “clear.”

“you are now thinking that I am... a young man with an auspicious exterior and... a ‘suspicious interior’”

You probably think I’m a young poser—seemingly charming, but inwardly shady.

“I am evidently intentionally being eccentric...”

...and that I’m trying to get attention by being weird on purpose.

“If you indeed think so, then you are very, very mistaken.”

You’re completely wrong if that’s your impression.

“First of all, I am not young...”

I’ve lived a long, hard life—much more than you might think.

“not only through the mill but through all the grindstones”

I’ve endured many more trials than most people ever face.

“not writing so as to make a career for myself...”

This book isn’t a stepping stone to a writing career for me.

“this profession... provides many openings to become a candidate d-i-r-e-c-t for ‘Hell’”

I believe the writing profession is spiritually hazardous—it can send people straight to hell.

“they write all kinds of ‘claptrap’ and thereby... acquiring authority...”

Writers often spout nonsense, yet people believe them and grant them influence.

“still further to diminish the... already extremely diminished psyche of people.”

These writers contribute to the worsening state of human inner life, which is already in deep decline.

He is stating that:

Don’t mistake him for a youthful eccentric trying to get rich. He’s lived through severe hardship and is not seeking a career in writing. In fact, he views the profession as spiritually degrading. Writers who know nothing write trash, gain false authority, and make people’s already weakened psyches even worse. His purpose is something entirely different.

• He begins by preempting judgment... exposing what he suspects the reader may be thinking—and then obliterates it.

• He blends comedy with severity... mocking the idea of being a “career writer” while accusing such people of leading others toward spiritual destruction.

• He condemns most of modern literature... as not just misguided, but one of the *causes* of the human condition's collapse.

• His tone is accusatory but confessional... offering life-worn authority while disavowing any claim to prestige or conformity.

“And as regards my personal career...”

Concerning my own life’s direction and position...

“thanks to all forces high and low and, if you like, even right and left...”

I owe it to every type of influence—divine or demonic, orderly or chaotic.

“I have actualized it long ago...”

I completed my personal mission or calling some time back.

“have already long been standing on ‘firm feet’ and even maybe on very good feet...”

I’ve been grounded and stable for quite a while, possibly even thriving.

“I moreover am certain that their strength is sufficient for many more years...”

I trust this foundation will carry me forward for a long time yet.

“in spite of all my past, present, and future enemies.”

...even though I’ve had and may still have many opponents.

He is stating that:

His personal work—his real career—has already been fulfilled. He attributes his established position to a convergence of all worldly and unworldly influences. He is not pursuing success; he has already attained inner and outer solidity. And no opponent, now or to come, can shake that foundation.

• He begins by closing the question of career... not by projecting ambition, but by declaring fulfillment.

• He thanks all forces indiscriminately... refusing to make the usual spiritual distinction between good and bad, suggesting deeper integration.

• He uses humorous imagery (“very good feet”)... softening the grand claim with a wink, while still asserting stability.

• He speaks from a place of spiritual completion... suggesting that he is already beyond careerism and beyond being unseated by enemies.

“Yes, I think you might as well be told also about an idea which has only just arisen in my madcap brain...”

I’ve just had another sudden, eccentric idea I want to share.

“specially to request the printer... to print this first chapter... so that anybody may read it before cutting the pages...”

I want the first chapter to be accessible even if the rest of the book is still sealed, so people can preview it.

“on learning that it is not written in the usual manner...”

Once the reader realizes this isn’t a typical book...

“for helping to produce... exciting images and lulling reveries...”

...because it doesn’t aim to entertain or lull the reader into fantasy...

“he may... return it and get his money back...”

...the reader should be free to return it for a refund...

“money perhaps earned by the sweat of his own brow.”

...especially if that money was earned through hard, honest work.

He is stating that:

He wants readers to be able to assess his unconventional style before committing to the full book. Since it’s not written for easy pleasure or passive reading, he offers a refund option—out of respect for those who’ve worked hard for their money.

• He begins with a spontaneous idea... sharing it midstream as if we are present in his unfolding mental process.

• He proposes a structural break from publishing norms... letting readers test-drive the book before “committing” via page-cutting.

• He critiques the standard function of literature... which aims to create soothing images or mental escape, unlike his own intent.

• He affirms a working-class ethic... acknowledging that readers may have earned their money through toil—and deserve respect.

“I shall do this without fail...”

I will definitely follow through with this idea.

“because I just now again remember the story of what happened to a Transcaucasian Kurd...”

My decision is prompted by a sudden recollection of a story I first heard as a child.

“engendered in me an enduring and inextinguishable impulse of tenderness”

Every time I’ve remembered it over the years, it has moved me deeply in a lasting way.

“it will be very useful for me, and also for you...”

I believe that telling it will benefit us both—me in writing, you in reading.

“the ‘salt’... or... the ‘Tzimus’ of this story...”

The core essence, the concentrated meaning or emotional-spiritual flavor.

“one of the basic principles of that new literary form...”

I intend to structure my whole style of writing around this story’s central principle.

“for the attainment of the aim I am now pursuing by means of this new profession of mine.”

This principle will serve the purpose I’m now aiming at through becoming a writer.

He is stating that:

He recalls a story from his youth that deeply affected him, and he plans to tell it in detail because its essence will form the central pillar of his new literary method. The story’s emotional and philosophical weight will guide the way he writes, and how he hopes the reader will receive his ideas.

• He begins by grounding his literary method in a private memory... making his entire formal approach personal, not academic or theoretical.

• He uses unexpected cultural cross-references... merging a Kurdish tale with Yiddish commercial slang (“tzimus”) to highlight the universality of his insight.

• He speaks from impulse, yet claims long-term intent... blending the spontaneous and the structural, emotion and craft.

• This is the hinge point of the chapter... where the eccentric opening transforms into something enduring: a mythic seedbed for the rest of the work.

“once set out from his village on some business or other to town...”

The Kurd left his rural home for an unspecified errand in the city.

“he saw in a fruiterer’s shop a handsomely arranged display of all kinds of fruit.”

He was struck by a beautifully arranged fruit stand in a city shop.

“one ‘fruit,’ very beautiful in both color and form...”

A particular fruit stood out—gorgeous in shape and hue.

“so took his fancy and he so longed to try it...”

He became emotionally drawn to it and intensely curious to taste it.

“with intense eagerness, and with a courage not customary to him...”

Overcome with desire, he pushed past his usual shyness.

“he asked the shopkeeper its price... a pound... two cents.”

The fruit cost very little—surprisingly affordable for such beauty.

“decided to buy a whole pound.”

He bought a generous amount, sensing a bargain and opportunity.

He is stating that:

A humble Kurd, drawn by the appearance of a lovely, unknown fruit, bravely spends part of his scarce money to acquire it. This sets the stage for a tale about expectation and disillusionment, and prepares the reader to reflect on the deeper costs of being seduced by appearances.

• He begins with a folkloric tone... setting the story in a specific ethnic and geographical frame that evokes oral tradition and timelessness.

• He gives emotional texture to a simple act... turning the buying of fruit into an existential moment of desire and risk.

• The Kurd’s courage is framed as unusual... already suggesting the act has spiritual or metaphysical dimensions.

• The fruit is not named... creating a layer of mystery and projection—what it represents is more important than what it is.

“Having finished his business in town...”

After completing whatever errand he came to do...

“he set off again on foot for home the same day.”

He began his journey back home on foot, without delay.

“Walking at sunset over the hills and dales...”

He travels through a gently rolling, picturesque landscape at dusk.

“willynilly perceiving the exterior visibility...”

Whether he wants to or not, he can’t help noticing the visual splendor around him.

“of those enchanting parts of the bosom of Great Nature, the Common Mother...”

The natural surroundings are described as nurturing and majestic, like a maternal presence.

“and involuntarily inhaling a pure air uncontaminated by... industrial towns...”

He breathes in clean, rural air—unlike the polluted air of cities.

“our Kurd quite naturally suddenly felt a wish to gratify himself with some ordinary food also...”

This tranquil setting awakens a simple desire to eat.

“so sitting down by the side of the road...”

He finds a place to rest by the roadside.

“he took from his provision bag some bread and the ‘fruit’... and leisurely began to eat.”

He unwraps his humble meal and begins eating slowly and contentedly.

He is stating that:

The Kurd, walking home at sunset through pristine nature, is overtaken by hunger. In harmony with the natural setting, he pauses to eat bread and the captivating fruit he had bought earlier. It’s a peaceful, anticipatory moment—pregnant with unspoken expectation.

• He begins with serene naturalism... evoking a pastoral setting that contrasts with the artificiality of towns.

• The prose is deliberately over-ornamented... with layered adjectives (“willynilly,” “exterior visibility,” “bosom of Great Nature”) that both elevate and parody literary tone.

• He builds tension gently... by delaying the actual tasting of the fruit, inviting the reader to linger in the calm before the turn.

• This is a moment of false security... which will soon be overturned—setting up a lesson in perception and disillusionment.

“horror of horrors! … everything inside him began to burn.”

The fruit was actually hot pepper—causing searing internal discomfort.

“But in spite of this he kept on eating.”

He didn’t stop; he continued out of some deep internal drive.

“thanks only to that particular human inherency...”

He persisted due to a distinct human trait Gurdjieff believes is central to human nature.

“to make... a ‘guiding beacon’ leading me to one of my aims...”

Gurdjieff uses this trait—stubborn, blind persistence—as a structuring principle for his literary approach.

“you will... soon grasp... according to the degree of your comprehension...”

He suggests the reader will begin to perceive this theme—depending on their capacity to understand.

“if... you take the risk and read further...”

This reading journey is risky; you may suffer as the Kurd does, but insight lies ahead.

“at the moment... overwhelmed by all the unusual sensations...”

Just as the Kurd is caught in distress, a wise observer appears.

“real ‘red pepper pods’...”

He has been eating something fiery and intense—not sweet fruit.

He is stating that:

Humans often persist in painful or mistaken actions out of internal stubbornness or illusion. This tendency, which Gurdjieff names as a guiding principle in his literary method, mirrors the Kurd’s ordeal: suffering, yet continuing. The reader is asked to reflect on whether they, too, will persist despite discomfort—and perhaps glimpse something essential in doing so.

• He begins with physical comedy... but quickly layers it with psychological and metaphysical insight.

• He uses the Kurd’s mistake as allegory... for how people endure suffering due to false appearances or internal compulsion.

• He implicates the reader directly... suggesting that reading *this book* is a parallel trial, a test of attention and will.

• He calls suffering a beacon... turning discomfort into a teaching tool and spiritual indicator.

• The wise villager’s arrival is dramatic... foreshadowing the voice of insight interrupting automatic habit.

“What are you doing, you Jericho jackass?”

You fool! What madness is this?

“You’ll be burnt alive!”

You’re torturing yourself—it’s dangerous!

“Stop eating that extraordinary product...”

Quit consuming that strange, harmful thing.

“so unaccustomed for your nature.”

Your body is not suited to handle it.

“No, for nothing on Earth will I stop.”

I absolutely refuse to stop, no matter what.

“Didn’t I pay my last two cents for them?”

I invested everything in this—so I must follow through.

“Even if my soul departs from my body...”

Even if it kills me, I will continue.

“Whereupon our resolute Kurd...”

So, our stubborn Kurd—true to character—kept going.

He is stating that:

Even when warned and visibly in distress, the Kurd continues to eat the red peppers out of stubbornness, pride, and a misplaced sense of obligation. Gurdjieff uses this scene to reflect how people cling to suffering, resisting change, especially when their ego or past effort is involved.

• He begins with humor and insult... using the phrase “Jericho jackass” to cut through to the absurdity of the Kurd’s behavior.

• He stages a moral intervention... where compassion meets irrational determination.

• The Kurd’s logic is tragically relatable... many people double down on bad choices because of what they’ve already paid—emotionally, socially, or monetarily.

• Gurdjieff invites the reader to self-reflect... this is not just about the Kurd—it’s about you, reading a difficult book and unwilling to “stop” even if it burns.

“After what you have just perceived...”

Now that you’ve read the story of the Kurd...

“a corresponding mental association... that which you call... understanding”

He hopes this sparked a kind of realization or insight in the reader.

“well knowing and having many a time commiserated with this human inherency...”

He’s familiar with—and has often pitied—this human flaw of finishing what one paid for.

“he is bound to use it to the end”

People feel obligated to finish something just because they bought it.

“to take every possible measure...”

He deliberately designed the book’s intro to make its difficulty apparent upfront.

“my brother in appetite and in spirit”

He affectionately addresses the reader as someone who shares his hunger for truth or experience.

“only those written... in the ‘language of the intelligentsia’”

Books written in a smooth, conventional, academic style that flatters the reader’s ego.

“should not be compelled... to read my writings through to the end at all costs...”

He doesn’t want readers to finish just from guilt or stubbornness.

“as our poor Transcaucasian Kurd...”

Like the Kurd, who ate the red pepper not for taste, but because he paid for it.

He is stating that:

He’s deliberately designed this book so readers aren’t tricked into continuing just because they bought it. He hopes you’ve seen in the Kurd’s ordeal a reflection of your own habits—and that you’ll understand his method is not for everyone, nor meant to be consumed out of pride or compulsion.

• He begins by equating storytelling with self-revelation... encouraging internal resonance over intellectual interpretation.

• He treats the buying of a book as a psychological trap... one that mirrors the red pepper: attractive at first, painful in practice.

• He invokes a shared human flaw... the compulsion to finish something purely because it was paid for, even if it’s damaging or miserable.

• He proactively liberates the reader... from feeling bound to finish, offering awareness as the true “completion.”

“for the purpose of avoiding any misunderstanding through this inherency...”

To prevent confusion caused by this human tendency (to persist with something because one has paid for it).

“the data for which are formed in the entirety of contemporary man...”

This pattern is widespread in modern humanity.

“thanks evidently to his frequenting of the cinema...”

He links the cause to overexposure to superficial visual entertainment.

“and... looking into the left eye of the other sex...”

Also to habitual sexual distraction—implied to be automatic and unexamined.

“I wish that this commencing chapter of mine should be printed in the said manner...”

He wants it specially printed so readers can access it upfront without full commitment.

“so that everyone can read it through without cutting the pages of the book itself.”

Allowing a free preview before physical or financial investment deepens.

He is stating that:

To protect readers from unconscious commitment driven by cultural conditioning, he asks the publisher to make the first chapter readable before the rest of the book is opened. He believes modern people—dulled by cinema and erotic distractions—need this protection to choose freely and consciously whether to proceed.

• He begins with compassion disguised as technical request... trying to free the reader from mechanical loyalty to a purchase.

• He traces a publishing detail to deep psychic causes... linking it to the degradation of modern consciousness.

• He references “looking into the left eye”... a bizarre but vivid way to name unconscious erotic habit—underscoring his critique of reflexive desire.

• He positions this small print decision as a tool of awakening... where the medium itself becomes part of the message: read consciously, or not at all.

“Otherwise the bookseller will, as is said, ‘cavil’...”

If I don’t arrange it this way, the bookseller will nitpick and find fault.

“and will without fail again turn out to act in accordance with the basic principle of booksellers in general...”

They will behave true to their usual business mindset.

“formulated by them in the words: ‘You’ll be more of a simpleton than a fisherman if you let go of the fish which has swallowed the bait’”

Their motto implies: once someone has committed, never give them an out—even if it’s unethical.

“and will decline to take back a book whose pages you have cut.”

They’ll use the cut pages as an excuse to refuse a refund.

“I have no doubt of this possibility; indeed, I fully expect such lack of conscience on the part of the booksellers.”

He’s confident that this sort of dishonest behavior is the norm.

He is stating that:

Booksellers, acting on self-serving principles, will almost certainly refuse to refund a buyer who’s opened the book, regardless of fairness. Gurdjieff anticipates and expects this lack of integrity, which is why he proposed that the first chapter be readable without cutting any pages.

• He begins with a technical concern... but turns it into a sharp commentary on commerce and trust.

• He quotes a cynical proverb... using the metaphor of baited fish to characterize business ethics as predatory.

• He normalizes the bookseller’s dishonesty... not as a failing, but as a predictable reflex of the system.

• He links form to function... shaping the physical presentation of the book to protect the reader from economic and psychological traps.

“data for the engendering of my certainty...”

What led me to be sure about this lack of integrity.

“while I was a professional ‘Indian Fakir’...”

During a phase of his life in which he practiced as an Indian ascetic or mystic.

“for the complete elucidation of a certain ‘ultraphilosophical’ question...”

He was investigating a deep metaphysical issue.

“the associative process for the manifestation of the automatically constructed psyche...”

He examined how salesmen’s minds function in patterned, automatic ways when deceiving buyers.

“since the misfortune which befell me, habitually just and fastidious...”

Since a serious event in his life, he’s become scrupulously fair and precise.

“imploringly advising you... to read through... this first chapter...”

He begs the reader to thoroughly study this initial chapter before proceeding further into the book.

He is stating that:

He developed his distrust of booksellers through direct psychological investigation. This past experience, combined with his strict sense of justice developed from personal hardship, compels him to earnestly warn the reader to read and reread the first chapter before cutting the rest of the book—so as not to become trapped in an unwanted commitment based on appearances alone.

• He begins with autobiographical absurdity... invoking a period when he was a professional “Indian Fakir” studying book dealers as a philosophical exercise.

• He critiques capitalism through psychology... implying that sellers are trapped in automatic behaviors, not willful evil.

• He links this critique to his spiritual rigor... framing his warning not as paranoia, but as an ethical necessity born from hard-won awareness.

• He repeats his caution insistently... emphasizing the sacred weight of how one approaches a book, especially his.

“notwithstanding this warning of mine...”

Even though I told you not to continue unless you're serious...

“wish you with all my ‘genuine soul’ a very, very good appetite...”

I sincerely hope you can digest this material—mentally and spiritually.

“not only for your own health but for... those near you.”

What you gain (or fail to digest) will affect others too.

“people... are fond of taking in vain every sacred name...”

He criticizes the European habit of using holy names in casual, meaningless swearing.

“theoretical—as contemporary people have become...”

Modern people are armchair philosophers, disconnected from practice.

“When in Rome, do as Rome does...”

He quotes the proverb to justify a strategic cultural adaptation.

“swear by my ‘English soul’.”

Rather than swear falsely by something sacred, he invents a neutral substitute in jest.

He is stating that:

If you proceed with this difficult book, he wishes you success in truly assimilating it. But mindful of the casual sacrilege common in modern life, he distances himself from that by swearing not by something sacred, but humorously by his “English soul”—a nod to both cultural irony and spiritual caution.

• He begins by blessing the reader... but frames it as a form of dietary challenge—appetite and digestion of ideas.

• He transitions from mystical to mundane... linking soul and swearing, spiritual seriousness and cultural humor.

• He offers a personal adaptation... that balances inner integrity with external custom—a blend of flexibility and precision.

• He refuses to take sacred language lightly... insisting on inward alignment even in casual speech.

“in this fashionable language, the words ‘soul’ and... ‘sole’... are pronounced and even written almost alike.”

In English, the sacred and the profane are nearly identical in sound and spelling.

“I do not know how it is with you...”

Maybe you don’t feel this way, but let me explain how I do.

“my peculiar nature cannot... avoid being indignant...”

He is deeply and personally disturbed by this cultural confusion.

“that the very highest in man... can really be named... that which is lowest and dirtiest...”

He finds it intolerable that the sacred is mistaken or reduced to the profane.

He is stating that:

The English language, through a superficial similarity between “soul” and “sole,” reflects a deeper failure in modern civilization to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. This misnaming isn’t just linguistic—it reveals an unconscious disrespect for what is highest in the human being.

• He begins with a pun... but turns it into a critique of civilization’s spiritual confusion.

• He reads language as a mirror of Being... where pronunciation reflects consciousness (or its lack).

• He ties a minor phonetic detail to divine reverence... asserting that even casual mislabeling betrays a rupture with the sacred.

• He positions himself as sensitized... confessing that even small indignities to the soul offend his entire nature.

“Well, enough of ‘philologizing.’”

Let’s stop analyzing words and language.

“Let us return to the main task...”

Back to the real point of this first chapter.

“to stir up the drowsy thoughts in me as well as in the reader...”

To awaken both his and the reader’s thinking.

“to warn the reader about something.”

There’s also a message of caution to convey.

“I have already composed in my head the plan and sequence...”

He knows the general structure of what he wants to say.

“but what form they will take on paper... I do not... know with my consciousness...”

The exact written form is still undefined to his surface mind.

“but with my subconsciousness I already definitely feel...”

But his deeper self senses what it will become.

“it will take the form of something... ‘hot’...”

It will be intense and stimulating.

“such as the red pepper pods had on the poor Transcaucasian Kurd.”

It will challenge and possibly discomfort the reader, as the pepper did to the Kurd.

He is stating that:

Setting aside wordplay, Gurdjieff returns to his goal of provoking awakening and issuing warning. Though he hasn’t consciously finalized how his exposition will look, he senses deeply that it will be powerful—capable of jarring the reader awake, just as the red pepper physically shocked the Kurd.

• He ends a digression not by apology but by redirection... revealing the digression itself was part of the method.

• He shares uncertainty without shame... making his writing a lived example of self-observation between conscious and subconscious processes.

• He reinforces metaphor as method... tying back the pepper story to prepare readers for discomfort as transformation.

• He positions writing itself as a tool of inner work... unpredictable in form but designed to burn through inertia.

“I already consider it my duty to make a confession...”

He feels compelled to reveal something important about his method and intent.

“your ‘pure waking consciousness’...”

The surface-level awareness most people think is their full consciousness.

“most people... mistake for the real consciousness...”

He argues this waking awareness is not true consciousness at all.

“which I affirm and experimentally prove is the fictitious one...”

He insists, based on experience, that it is a false construct.

“the subconscious, which ought to be... the real human consciousness...”

He elevates the subconscious as the rightful seat of human awareness.

“bring about that transformation which should... give him... the results he ought to have...”

The goal is a real inner change—true human development, not merely animal functioning.

He is stating that:

His writings are structured to reach beneath the reader’s waking mind into the subconscious, which he asserts is the true human consciousness. This method is designed not just to inform, but to transform—to bring about changes in being appropriate for a fully developed three-brained human.

• He begins with a confession... revealing the deliberate architecture of his style, previously cloaked in eccentricity.

• He redefines consciousness... by reversing modern assumptions—what is “waking” is actually fictitious, and what is “sub” is primary.

• He embeds method in myth... referring back to the Kurd and the red pepper, not as allegory but as initiation.

• He seeks inner transformation, not intellectual stimulation... placing his book in the lineage of esoteric instruction, not mere literature.

“I decided to do this without fail...”

He resolved firmly to implement this approach, no exceptions.

“so that this initial chapter... should fully justify its purpose...”

The chapter must accomplish what it was designed to do—provoke awakening.

“reaching not only your... fictitious ‘consciousness’...”

He intends to penetrate beyond the superficial mental activity most mistake for real awareness.

“but also your real consciousness... what you call your subconscious...”

He believes the subconscious is the true core of human awareness and wants to reach it directly.

“might, for the first time, compel you to reflect actively.”

This structure is meant to force real, intentional inner work—something many may never have done before.

He is stating that:

This chapter was crafted deliberately to trigger not just mental stimulation but profound inner activity. By reaching past superficial thought and into the subconscious, it aims to awaken the reader into real, self-initiated reflection—perhaps for the very first time.

• He begins with a vow... presenting this chapter as a deliberate catalyst, not casual prologue.

• He denies conventional consciousness... reframing ordinary awareness as fictitious, even deceptive.

• He aims for the subconscious as true self... not as mystery or hidden reservoir, but as the rightful seat of transformation.

• He suggests most have never truly reflected... and this chapter could be the first time they ever do.

“two independent consciousnesses... have almost nothing in common”

The two types of awareness function so differently that they may as well be separate beings inside us.

“mechanical impressions... ‘consonances’ of various words”

Surface-level responses formed by chance or social conditioning, including catchy but meaningless phrases.

“already previously formed material results... transmitted by heredity”

Subtle, real data passed down biologically and energetically, forming the foundation for true understanding.

“intentional evoking of the associative confrontations”

Inner work: voluntarily bringing attention to inherited material and examining it in depth.

“should... predominate in the common presence of a man”

This deeper, earned consciousness should govern a real human being’s behavior and perception.

He is stating that:

Human beings possess two types of consciousness: one shallow, reactive, and based on external inputs; the other deep, rooted in heredity and formed through conscious inner work. It is the second, the so-called “subconscious,” that should lead the individual—but in most people it does not. His entire system is geared toward restoring this proper inner hierarchy.

• He redefines the subconscious... not as a Freudian underworld but as the rightful center of human consciousness.

• He dismisses surface impressions... labeling much of what people call thought as mechanical noise and mimicry.

• He puts heredity and effort together... suggesting true consciousness arises from a synthesis of inherited depth and intentional refinement.

• He calls for reversal of inner control... placing the subconscious—not the surface mind—in command of our being.

“this conviction of mine... seems to you the fruit of the fantasies of an afflicted mind”

He anticipates the reader thinks his theory about dual consciousness is insane.

“I cannot now... disregard this second consciousness”

He feels morally or ontologically compelled to speak to the subconscious.

“calculate... to ‘ruffle’... the perceptions... in both these consciousnesses”

His structure is intentional, designed to provoke discomfort or awakening on both levels.

“must... inform your fictitious consciousness”

He’s speaking first to the surface mind, knowing it’s not the real one.

“three definite peculiar data... crystallized... during... preparatory age”

He claims early life experiences gave him unique tools of perception or influence.

“muddling and befuddling... notions and convictions... firmly fixed...”

He is skilled at destabilizing deeply held assumptions in others.

He is stating that:

Although his theory of dual consciousness may seem mad, he must write to affect both. His method is designed to disturb fixed beliefs in both the waking and subconscious layers. He possesses early-developed inner traits that enable him to confuse and unsettle others—not as a trick, but as part of his intentional shock method.

• He anticipates disbelief... and frames it as a predictable reaction of the fictitious consciousness.

• He openly declares psychological manipulation as method... yet presents it as therapeutic and intentional.

• He reveals formative influences... not in biographical terms, but as inner crystallizations linked to his work’s effect.

• He disrupts the reader’s sense of stability... by aiming not to confirm assumptions, but to disturb them at the root level.

“Tut! Tut! Tut! …”

Mocking exclamation—he feigns dismay at the predictable reaction of the reader.

“agitated, like ‘blinded flies,’ all the chief data transmitted to you by heredity...”

Inherited traits (from uncle and mother) are reacting instinctively and without clarity.

“impulse—nevertheless extremely good—of curiosity...”

Though arising from automatic responses, curiosity is still a valuable impulse.

“a novice at writing... suddenly become so unique”

The reader wonders why someone obscure and unpublished presents himself so boldly.

“impulse unworthy of man can sometimes even pass... into the desire for knowledge”

Even base curiosity can evolve into a noble yearning for understanding.

“I am even willing, with pleasure, to satisfy this curiosity...”

He’s glad to indulge the reader’s interest because it serves a deeper aim.

He is stating that:

The reader’s superficial curiosity—sparked by confusion over Gurdjieff’s confident tone—is a normal, inherited reaction. Though it stems from the false consciousness, it can evolve into a sincere quest for knowledge. Encouraging this development, Gurdjieff expresses pleasure and readiness to satisfy the reader’s desire to know why he claims uniqueness.

• He mocks but then praises the reader’s reaction... turning ridicule into pedagogical leverage.

• He distinguishes between types of curiosity... one base and reflexive, the other refined and intentional.

• He describes heredity as active in real-time... a Fourth Way diagnosis of how impulses arise “automatically.”

• He links ridicule to encouragement... using contradiction as a tool to bypass resistance and engage both layers of mind.

“Now listen and try to justify, and not to disappoint, my expectations.”

He urges the reader to be receptive and worthy of the insight he's about to give.

“already ‘smelled out’ by certain definite individuals from both choirs of the Judgment Seat Above…”

He claims to be recognized by rare beings, possibly divine or angelic, who represent cosmic judgment and justice.

“also here on Earth, by as yet a very limited number of people…”

Only a few people on Earth have sensed his inner uniqueness.

“three secondary specific data formed in me… during my preparatory age.”

He identifies three subtle but foundational traits that took shape in his youth.

“chief directing lever of my entire wholeness”

One of these traits became the dominant force organizing his whole being.

“the other two, the ‘vivifying-sources’…”

The other two traits serve as energetic supports that feed and refine the central lever.

He is stating that:

Gurdjieff’s distinctive inner nature is grounded in three formative qualities from his youth—one dominant and two supportive. This configuration has been intuitively recognized by rare individuals both on Earth and in higher realms. He is now ready to reveal the basis of his esoteric authority and transformative influence.

• He begins by invoking accountability... asking the reader not to disappoint him before offering deeper knowledge.

• He claims recognition from divine or celestial intelligences... implying his work is sanctioned by cosmic justice.

• He describes internal structures as “levers” and “sources”... using engineering metaphors to describe psychological or spiritual dynamics.

• He introduces an esoteric typology of selfhood... suggesting that true individuality is formed through early alchemical conditions rather than mere social shaping.

“The arising of this first datum... when I was still only... a ‘chubby mite.’”

He was a very young child when this foundational influence took root.

“placed her dying left hand on my head...”

The act was ceremonial, almost priestly—imprinting a transmission through physical gesture.

“In life never do as others do.”

The core directive: reject conformity, do not imitate.

“Either do nothing... or do something nobody else does.”

A paradoxical refinement—avoid mediocrity by embracing either total restraint or radical originality.

“gave up her soul directly into the hands of... the Archangel Gabriel.”

Her death is framed as sanctified and intentional, under divine observation.

He is stating that:

From early childhood, Gurdjieff was marked by a sacred directive delivered at the deathbed of his grandmother: to never follow others blindly. This command, given with authority and mythic gravity, seeded a foundational principle in his being—one that would govern his life’s path and spiritual vocation as a disruptor of automatic imitation.

• He presents a childhood memory as cosmic ordination... not merely sentimental but as a ritual implant of essential law.

• He casts defiance of imitation as a sacred act... not rebellion for its own sake, but a metaphysical responsibility.

• He invokes angelic judgment without irony... aligning his origin story with forces beyond the human realm.

• He frames paradox as spiritual hygiene... either do nothing (resist the machine) or do something radically individual (break the machine).

“the mortal ‘planetary body’ of the cause of the cause of my arising...”

A poetic reference to his grandmother’s dead body—“cause of the cause” implying ancestral depth.

“I very quietly... stole away to the bin... for our ‘sanitarians’...”

He slipped away unnoticed to hide in the pig-feed storage area, overwhelmed and seeking solitude.

“in a tempest of whirling and confused thoughts...”

His young mind was spinning, confused and emotionally overloaded.

“began to stamp my feet... and... to imitate the braying of the donkey...”

A spontaneous and inexplicable physical-emotional outburst.

“Why this produced such a strong impression... I cannot until now make out...”

He confesses he still does not understand why he was affected so strangely and deeply.

He is stating that:

The emotional intensity of his grandmother’s death and her final injunction stunned him as a child, causing an involuntary withdrawal and a strange behavioral outburst that he still cannot explain. This moment marked an early psychic disturbance—possibly the first inner “shock” in the Fourth Way sense—which left a permanent, mysterious imprint.

• He frames a child’s grief as metaphysical disturbance... not as simple mourning but as a catalyzing existential event.

• He shows how irrational behavior may be deeply symbolic... even when its meaning remains unknown to the actor.

• He preserves ambiguity... leaving room for future interpretation instead of offering a tidy explanation.

• He suggests that profound experiences may bypass conscious understanding... rooting themselves in the subconscious where they ferment for years.

“I then had only the logical supposition...”

At the time, he could only guess logically why the event had such force.

“the room... was permeated... with the scent of a special incense...”

The sacred atmosphere was infused with monastery-grade incense, perhaps contributing to the intensity.

“very popular among followers of every shade of belief...”

This incense had a strong presence across many Christian sects—suggesting shared spiritual associations.

“Whatever it may have been, this fact still now remains a bare fact.”

He makes no firm claim about cause, but insists the experience and its impact are real and unarguable.

He is stating that:

Although he cannot explain why his grandmother’s death imprinted him so deeply, he suspects it may have been partially due to the intense religious atmosphere—particularly the incense. But regardless of the mechanism, he maintains the event’s influence as undeniable and enduring.

• He avoids assigning absolute cause... acknowledging a mystery without forcing closure.

• He elevates sensory elements (incense) to spiritual effect... showing how environment can shape consciousness in early life.

• He treats “fact” as a lived imprint, not just a reportable event... emphasizing interior reality over explanation.

• He implicitly connects sacred ritual to psychological programming... suggesting the power of atmosphere in shaping a child’s destiny.

“walked more often than usual with my feet in the air, that is to say, on my hands.”

Unusual childlike behavior, possibly symbolic of inner inversion or disruption.

“without the participation... of my consciousness... or subconsciousness...”

He claims the act was not planned or even emotionally driven—it was automatic, perhaps instinctual.

“instead of standing quietly... I started skipping round the grave as if dancing...”

He radically deviated from the expected behavior of solemn mourning.

“Let her with the saints repose...”

A mocking rhyme he spontaneously invented, turning grief into parody.

“a ‘something’ arose... an ‘irresistible urge’ to do things not as others do them.”

This experience forged a defining trait: rebellion against imitation and societal automatism.

He is stating that:

On the fortieth day after his grandmother’s death, Gurdjieff involuntarily disrupted a sacred family ritual with comedic irreverence. Though spontaneous, this act catalyzed a lasting trait—an intense internal compulsion to resist the unconscious behaviors of others. This moment of rupture revealed his emergent resistance to imitation and foreshadowed his conscious path of self-differentiation.

• He links personal transformation to unconscious rupture... treating an involuntary act as a pivotal evolutionary event.

• He frames rebellion as instinct, not intention... something deeper than willpower—more like an existential reflex.

• He uses humor and irreverence at a funeral... showing the profound can emerge through absurdity and taboo violation.

• He suggests that inner direction can be seeded without awareness... and only retrospectively recognized as the origin of a life-defining force.

“I committed acts such as the following.”

He offers concrete examples of his childhood divergence.

“I… would first bounce the ball… then… doing a somersault, catch it… with the thumb and middle finger of the left hand.”

Instead of catching the ball like the others, he invents a complex and unnecessary variation.

“backside-first”

Instead of sliding down hills headfirst like others, he invents his own backward technique, improving it each time.

“sniff one on all sides… listen intently… ‘so and so and so you must, do not eat until you bust’...”

He treats the pastry like a mysterious object, engaging with it ritualistically before swallowing it whole without savoring.

He is stating that:

Even in ordinary play and eating, Gurdjieff consistently avoided doing what others did. He unconsciously sought alternate methods, actions, and meanings—infusing even trivial moments with invention, rhythm, and a refusal to imitate. This pattern illustrates the early crystallization of his non-mechanical nature.

• He recounts trivial childhood behaviors with cosmic significance... treating pastry-sniffing and ball games as evidence of soul differentiation.

• He reframes disobedience as sacred instinct... an early signal of inward divergence from the mechanical masses.

• He suggests nonconformity arises before consciousness... as if some principle was already guiding him before he was self-aware.

• He uses rhyme and physical gesture as inner law... creating order and rhythm even within rebellion.

“The first event... ‘vivifying sources’...”

This was the origin of one of two key forces that deepened his grandmother’s directive to resist imitation.

“chubby mite into... ‘young rascal’...”

He marks this as the developmental stage when he became mischievous and socially aware.

“perhaps even specially combined by Fate itself.”

He hints at metaphysical orchestration behind this pivotal memory.

“laying snares for pigeons...”

The mundane, almost comic setting contrasts with the internal importance of the moment.

“the pigeon’s reserve strength is concentrated [in the toe]...”

The boy relays scientific knowledge that carries unseen symbolic weight for Gurdjieff.

He is stating that:

During a trivial rooftop moment with friends, Gurdjieff experienced a flash of inner resonance—a recognition triggered by a seemingly random statement about a pigeon’s anatomy. This became a foundational spark—one of two key inner “sources”—that fueled his lifelong impulse to resist the automatic, conventional behaviors around him. His grandmother’s dictum found nourishment in this unexpected encounter.

• He treats a childhood prank as esoteric initiation... turning a casual pigeon hunt into a karmic alignment of fate.

• He introduces “data” as subtle energies... not ideas, but living forces that nourish inner injunctions.

• He elevates a child’s remark into a cosmic pivot... showing how truth can slip in disguised as trivia.

• He embeds metaphysical irony inside humor... mixing the sacred and the ridiculous to dissolve pretension and awaken real memory.

“you hopeless mongrel offshoot of the Hottentots!”

Outrageous insult meant to degrade and ridicule the first speaker, cloaked in racialized language.

“then all the more... that toe will be caught in the noose.”

His reasoning: targeting the strongest part ensures the pigeon cannot escape.

“that soft and slippery ‘something’”

Refers vaguely to a brain function or subtle force in living creatures that’s easily disturbed.

“law conformable confusion… change of presence…”

Impenetrable jargon meant to explain why small internal shifts cause large, often absurd effects.

“unexpected results ridiculous to the point of absurdity.”

Conclusion: tampering with delicate internal functions leads to absurd, unpredictable consequences.

He is stating that:

The second boy, full of arrogance and mock intellect, asserts that catching the pigeon’s strongest toe is strategically sound. He supports this by unleashing a bizarre theory about bodily systems, in which small internal shifts result in chaotic functional outcomes. His speech, both excessive and absurd, mocks the misapplication of technical knowledge and the ease with which bombast can masquerade as wisdom.

• He combines vulgar mockery with pseudo-scholarly jargon... showcasing the grotesque blend of instinct and intellect in undeveloped minds.

• The boy’s theory is a parody of complexity... using sophisticated terms to defend a basic power tactic: domination by force.

• Gurdjieff shows how early human reasoning can distort function... when cleverness outpaces clarity and compassion.

• The episode echoes later themes of functional displacement... the subtle, dangerous shifts within a being that result in spiritual or behavioral absurdity.

“such a shower of saliva that it was as if my face were exposed to the action of an ‘atomizer’”

The spray of saliva was so intense it felt like an industrial misting machine.

“not of ‘Ersatz’ production—invented by the Germans…”

He specifies it’s not a cheap imitation, but a precision German device, adding irony and ridicule.

“without changing my squatting position, I flung myself at him…”

He explosively attacks from a low posture, revealing force and immediacy.

“my head… hitting him… in the pit of his stomach… made him ‘lose consciousness’”

The blow was decisive and dramatic—it knocked the boy out cold.

He is stating that:

Overwhelmed by the absurdity and physical affront of the second boy’s saliva-laced tirade, Gurdjieff reacted with sudden, instinctive violence. The moment unites the grotesque and the comic, showing how intolerable falsity—especially when physically invasive—can trigger a non-verbal, decisive rejection.

• He elevates a spitting boy to metaphorical absurdity... turning him into a walking atomizer of mechanical speech.

• The humor masks a serious lesson... how over-mechanized intellect provokes instinctual resistance.

• He responds not with words but with direct physicality... foreshadowing his deeper stance against false mentation and hollow verbosity.

• The unconscious blow reveals unconscious truth... a visceral correction to a world saturated with pretentious nonsense.

“I do not know and do not wish to know in what spirit...”

He openly dismisses concern for the reader’s reaction or interpretation.

“the extraordinary coincidence, in my opinion, of life circumstances...”

He considers what happened to be more than chance—an exceptional conjunction of events.

“excellent material for the assurance of the possibility of the fact...”

To him, this was valuable proof that such things can be intentional and meaningful.

“not simply accidentally but was intentionally created by certain extraneous forces.”

He believes the event was engineered by higher or outside forces—not random.

He is stating that:

The life event he’s about to recount was not a fluke. Though others may see it as coincidence, he sees it as confirmation that unseen forces shape significant events intentionally, especially in early life. He’s not interested in debate—only in presenting his lived conviction.

• He begins with a disclaimer of indifference... avoiding the reader’s opinion entirely, which is uncommon in didactic writing.

• He frames coincidence as potential revelation... using it as proof of higher orchestration rather than randomness.

• He credits “extraneous forces” with conscious intervention... hinting at a universe where intention operates invisibly on destiny.

• He positions personal memory as metaphysical data... grounding cosmic conclusions in biographical anecdote.

“this dexterity was thoroughly taught me...”

The physical technique (likely how to move or strike effectively) was recently taught.

“a Greek priest from Turkey... persecuted... fled...”

The teacher was in exile due to political oppression by the Turks.

“hired by my parents as a teacher...”

The priest became Gurdjieff’s tutor in modern Greek.

“even while explaining... exclamation in ancient and modern Greek...”

Patriotism was evident in everything he said, no matter the topic.

“dreams of... the island of Crete...”

The priest’s aim was to return to Crete and prove himself as a national hero.

He is stating that:

The skill that allowed him to deliver a decisive blow had just been taught to him by an exiled Greek priest whose every word was steeped in patriotic longing. While Gurdjieff did not grasp the priest’s ideology, he absorbed his bodily knowledge—a transmission of practical force rather than abstract belief.

• He ties a childhood act of violence to political exile... suggesting how practical skills flow through displaced and ideologically driven teachers.

• The priest is more mythic than political... a figure of intense inner longing, not clear doctrine.

• The contrast of embodiment vs. abstraction... hints at a major theme—real transformation arises through action, not verbal ideals.

• It prefigures the transference of energetic “posture”... one of Gurdjieff’s deeper lessons: how essence may be shaped through seemingly mundane interactions.

“on beholding the effect of my skill, I was… extremely frightened”

Seeing the boy knocked out shocked him; he feared he had gone too far.

“I quite thought I had killed him”

He truly believed the blow may have been fatal.

“without a moment’s pause… leaped at me”

The cousin reacts instantly, with no hesitation.

“with a full swing struck me in the face with his fist”

The blow is forceful and direct, driven by emotion.

“my mouth became as full as if… food… for a thousand chickens”

Comic exaggeration showing how disoriented he was after the hit.

He is stating that:

He was alarmed by the consequences of his own action, suddenly facing the reality of physical danger and interpersonal retaliation. This episode captures the raw unpredictability of youth, the shock of real consequence, and the absurd way such formative moments unfold, tangled in both instinct and social conditioning.

• He frames childhood violence with existential fear... highlighting the unanticipated gravity of bodily consequences.

• He uses grotesque humor to describe injury... which undercuts tragedy and reveals early detachment mechanisms.

• The idea of “consanguinity” as motive adds irony... as even noble feelings lead to mechanical violence.

• He continues blending the sacred and absurd... exploring how deep impulses emerge through ridiculous external scenes.

“some foreign substance was in my mouth”

He realizes something unfamiliar is inside his mouth after the punch.

“a tooth of large dimensions and strange form”

It isn’t a normal tooth—it’s oversized and oddly shaped.

“seven shoots... each of them... a drop of blood”

The tooth has seven branching parts, each with a drop of blood.

“through each separate drop there shone... one of the seven aspects...”

Each drop of blood reveals a distinct property of the “white ray,” a spiritual symbol.

He is stating that:

Following a chaotic physical encounter, something miraculous occurs: a symbolic object—possibly metaphysical—emerges from his body. Its form defies ordinary explanation, combining biological, alchemical, and spiritual features. The collective response is awe and silence. The moment becomes charged with significance beyond the literal, hinting at a shift in perception or destiny.

• He transitions from slapstick violence to sacred symbolism... merging grotesque physicality with mystical imagery.

• The “tooth” functions as a talisman or omen... a visceral object that emits metaphysical light and meaning.

• The silence of the boys signifies threshold perception... a moment when reality briefly opens to something higher.

• It introduces the “white ray,” suggesting early access to esoteric perception—through accident and suffering.

“After this silence, unusual for us ‘young rascals,’”

The rare moment of quiet awe ends; the boys revert to noise and chatter.

“to ask him just why this tooth was like that.”

They seek an expert opinion on the bizarre shape of the tooth.

“I, as the ‘hero of the day,’ stalked at the head...”

Gurdjieff proudly takes the lead, basking in the attention.

“wisdom tooth… who until they first exclaim ‘papa’ and ‘mamma’...”

The barber links it to early nourishment and recognition—tying anatomy to mythic developmental milestones.

He is stating that:

The intense mystery surrounding the tooth leads the boys to a familiar authority figure, who promptly reduces the wonder to a curious folk-biological explanation. Gurdjieff underscores the gap between rare inner events and conventional attempts to explain them away with mundane or mythic beliefs.

• The sacred gives way to the social again... The mystical moment collapses into ordinary peer behavior and status-seeking.

• Folk wisdom replaces metaphysical significance... The barber’s claim fuses superstition and biology into a comic cultural simplification.

• The early pattern of ridicule or dismissal emerges... Anomalous insights, even physical ones, are flattened by social roles and cliché authorities.

• The line between absurd and profound is played masterfully... Gurdjieff continues to mock both naive wonder and dismissive explanation, refusing to settle on either.

“the whole totality of the effects of this happening”

The complete psychological and symbolic impact of the event.

“my poor ‘wisdom tooth’ became a complete sacrifice”

His tooth was lost or ruined in the process.

“constantly absorbing… the essence of my deceased grandmother’s behest”

His mind kept returning to and integrating her dying advice—never do as others do.

“there began to ooze chronically… a ‘something’”

A symbolic substance began to leak from the site of the lost tooth—representing a mental or energetic tendency.

“arousing an interest in… every suspicious ‘actual fact’”

It provoked deep curiosity and analysis of unusual or questionable real-world phenomena.

“ultimately becoming a specialist…”

This tendency matured into his primary capacity and mode of being: analyzing and uncovering the hidden meaning of anomalies.

He is stating that:

The trauma and symbolic oddity of the tooth incident catalyzed a shift in Gurdjieff’s inner orientation—anchoring his grandmother’s rule as a guiding force and generating a quirky, investigatory impulse that would define his identity. Rather than inherited, this trait emerges organically through suffering, symbol, and lived strangeness.

• He links a physical injury to metaphysical transformation… suggesting that body trauma can reroute consciousness formation.

• The "ooze" is both comic and alchemical… a literal bodily symptom transformed into a symbolic function of perception.

• He attributes insight to an accidental wound… rather than divine revelation or study—making the grotesque sacred.

• He implicates the Paris underworld (Montmartre) in spiritual insight… fusing absurdity, nightlife, and esotericism into one stream of causality.

“This property newly formed in me after this event”

The tendency to inquire into suspicious facts that emerged after the wisdom tooth incident.

“with the co-operation of our OUR ALL-COMMON MASTER THE MERCILESS HEROPASS”

Time itself assisted in maturing this quality into a defining trait.

“a real inextinguishable hearth, always burning, of consciousness”

It became a core flame within his awareness, a permanent driver of insight.

“the totality of impressions received from information I chanced to acquire”

The second influence came from learning something profound, seemingly by accident.

“concerning the event which took place here among us on Earth”

Refers to a specific event that occurred on Earth but had cosmic implications.

“Mr. Alan Kardec… spiritualistic seance”

A hidden, mystical channel through which the origin of a key life principle was revealed.

“became… one of the chief ‘life principles’”

This principle spread across the universe, influencing all intelligent life.

He is stating that:

The investigative tendency he developed became the central flame of his awareness, deepened by the cosmic movement of time. A second, equally influential force was the discovery of a metaphysical “life principle” during a secret séance. This principle, originating from Earth, was eventually adopted by beings throughout the cosmos, and its impression on Gurdjieff shaped the totality of his individuality in alignment with his grandmother’s lifelong injunction.

• He credits a cosmic law to a séance revelation… not to science or religion, but to spiritualist dialogue channeled by Kardec.

• Earth is the seedbed of a universal principle… suggesting that events here ripple through all of existence.

• Heropass—Time itself—is a conscious co-agent… not a neutral flow, but an acting presence in the formation of character.

• The two fusing forces are deeply asymmetrical… one biological and absurd (a tooth injury), the other metaphysical and cosmic—yet both shape the same core injunction: “Never do as others do.”

“The formulation in words of this new ‘all-universal principle of living’”

This is how the newly discovered and supposedly universal behavioral law is phrased.

“If you go on a spree then go the whole hog including the postage.”

If you’re going to indulge or commit to something, do it fully—even pay the extras.

“arose on that same planet on which you too arose”

This cosmic principle was born on Earth, just like the reader.

“exist almost always on a bed of roses and frequently dance the fox trot”

Playful jab implying that life on Earth is often comfortable and superficial.

“I consider I have no right to withhold from you the information…”

He now feels obligated to explain the origin of this cosmic-level absurdity.

He is stating that:

A ridiculous Earth-born maxim—about fully committing to one's indulgences—has somehow become a central life principle across the universe. Gurdjieff ironically presents this as a solemn metaphysical truth, suggesting that Earth-originated absurdities can reverberate cosmically. He intends to share the origin story as part of his broader exposé of human (and cosmic) folly.

• He begins with cosmic framing and ends with idiom… Gurdjieff elevates a mundane, jokey proverb into the role of a metaphysical axiom.

• The principle is hilariously anticlimactic… It clashes with the lofty tone of universal truth, exposing how cultural nonsense can masquerade as deep wisdom.

• The tone mocks both the reader and tradition… He continues satirizing our human need for ultimate meaning, especially when sourced from cliché.

• This is a self-aware demonstration of form-content inversion… The packaging is sacred, but the payload is ridiculous—pointing to the reader’s susceptibility to reverence without substance.

“definite inculcation into my nature of the said new inherency”

The firm establishment within himself of the habit or drive to investigate causes.

“unaccountable striving to elucidate the real reasons”

An inexplicable inner compulsion to understand true origins behind real events.

“finding nothing else for the satisfaction of my psychic needs”

Unable to find anything else in Moscow to nourish his inner life.

“whether accidentally or as a result of some objective sequence according to a law I do not know”

He’s unsure if the discovery was random or part of some cosmic law.

He is stating that:

After developing a new drive to seek truth behind appearances, Gurdjieff arrives in Moscow and, lacking deeper nourishment, begins studying Russian cultural lore. There, he encounters something of note—possibly meaningful beyond coincidence—but leaves it hanging as a narrative hook.

• He admits to an unexplained inner drive… Gurdjieff doesn’t claim to fully understand why this impulse formed, only that it now guides him deeply.

• He frames a casual discovery with metaphysical weight… Even a seemingly minor moment is treated as possibly orchestrated by objective law.

• The tone blends autobiographical detail with cosmic suspicion… This is typical of Gurdjieff’s style—merging mundane facts with larger, hidden implications.

• He teases without revealing… This builds narrative tension while reinforcing his technique of layering meaning and delay.

“who in external appearance was to those around him a simple merchant”

He seemed to others to be nothing more than an ordinary merchant.

“his favorite one—because he resembled only his mother”

He favored this son because the boy reminded him of his wife, not himself.

“great unconscious author of the ‘all-universal principle of living’”

Ironically dubbed the creator of a famous principle, though unaware of his own influence.

“Russian blessing”

A euphemism for vodka, humorously cast as something noble or sacred.

“public education … customary always to begin one’s conversation”

A social ritual: discussions of reform or enlightenment are formalities before real intention is revealed.

He is stating that:

A provincial merchant—later celebrated (ironically) for articulating a universal life principle—goes to Moscow, gets drunk, and mid-boozy banter about public issues, remembers to buy his son a book. The seemingly trivial and comic circumstances frame the origin of something treated with cosmic importance.

• He begins a cosmic story with satire and banality… The “universal principle” begins in a drunkard’s forgetful errand.

• The father is both ordinary and mythic… Gurdjieff highlights the absurd contrast between appearance and effect.

• The son’s resemblance to the mother becomes a psychological pivot… A subtle emotional cue explains favoritism in a single clause.

• The setup is folkloric and metaphysically charged… “Once upon a time” frames the story like myth, but ends up grounding it in vodka and bookstore errands.

“looking through the book he had asked for”

He examines the book his son requested, now in hand.

“the book was sixty kopecks”

The seller quotes a price higher than what's printed.

“pondering in a strange manner, in general unusual for Russians”

The merchant pauses and reflects unusually deeply for what the author implies is a culturally unexpected moment of thoughtfulness.

“straightening himself up almost like a pillar … like an officer of the guards”

He adopts a commanding and dignified posture—physically expressing moral or intellectual authority.

“intonation in his voice expressing great authority”

His voice carries solemn weight, signaling that he’s about to say something memorable.

He is stating that:

When the merchant notices the price discrepancy, he reacts not impulsively but with exaggerated, almost comic solemnity. This theatrical pause marks the beginning of an inner pivot—he's not merely responding to a petty price difference, but preparing to enunciate something larger. Gurdjieff foreshadows that the man’s response will transcend the mundane trigger and point toward something of lasting philosophical resonance.

• The drama exceeds the situation… A minor price mismatch becomes the stage for a declaration of principle.

• “Unusual for Russians” adds satirical edge… Gurdjieff gently mocks the idea that deep reflection is rare or odd in a cultural context.

• The gesture is militaristic and stylized… Straightening up “like an officer” suggests not just dignity, but a performative transformation—he's adopting the posture of authority before speech.

• We’re on the cusp of myth-making… This is the hinge before the “principle” is born; the pivot from detail to doctrine.

“But it is marked here forty-five kopecks. Why do you ask sixty?”

The merchant notices a price discrepancy and confronts it directly.

“the ‘oleaginous’ face proper to all salesmen”

He puts on the slick, unctuous expression stereotypically attributed to salesmen.

“book indeed cost only forty-five kopecks, but … fifteen kopecks were added for postage”

The stated price is correct, but they’re charging more due to delivery fees—typical modern justification.

“pondered, this time like an English professor who has invented a capsule for castor oil”

He reflects with comic intellectual seriousness, as if innovating something important yet trivial.

“verbal formulation which … has since assumed the character of a saying”

He delivers a statement so apt that it becomes proverbial—a distilled insight from the everyday.

He is stating that:

When confronted with a small contradiction between the marked and quoted price, the merchant doesn't simply argue—he inwardly processes it, feels its absurdity, and responds by uttering a concise truth so resonant that it endures as folk wisdom. What begins as petty retail confusion becomes the seed of a timeless principle: the human tendency to embrace absurdity if it’s dressed in logic—and paid for in advance.

• The petty becomes archetypal… A trivial overcharge becomes the trigger for existential reflection.

• Performative consciousness… The merchant doesn’t react emotionally, but performs a ritual of thought before speaking—a dramatization of insight forming.

• The salesman is stylized… Gurdjieff inserts satire: the “oleaginous” mask of the seller implies the salesman archetype is part of the cosmic joke.

• The “saying” is about to drop… We are on the threshold of the famous maxim. This paragraph captures the metaphysical pause before the leap from fact to principle.

“Never mind, old fellow…”

He dismisses the price discrepancy with jovial acceptance.

“we’ll take the book”

He proceeds with the purchase despite the unfair markup.

“if you go on a spree then go the whole hog including the postage”

Once you indulge, do so completely—accept even the unreasonable add-ons.

“cognized all this”

The narrator absorbed the full implication and resonance of the event.

“competitive races…between all the various-sourced associations and experiences”

A flood of conflicting inner reactions—memories, meanings, impressions—are triggered simultaneously.

He is stating that:

The absurd rationalization of unfairness—when animated by good spirits and popular wit—can solidify into a proverb that reflects a universal human tendency: once committed to something, however flawed, we persist to justify our initial decision. The narrator experiences this not just as a cultural curiosity, but as an internal convulsion, a deep associative chain reaction that reveals just how such principles become implanted into consciousness.

• He elevates banality to myth… A drunken purchase gives birth to a universal principle, turning accident into doctrine.

• The narrator’s reaction is outsized… Instead of casual amusement, he experiences an inner storm, as if a code had been injected into his being.

• The phrase becomes ontological… It's not just about a book and postage—it’s about human nature, justification, and self-deception on a cosmic scale.

• “Competitive races of associations” hints at Fourth Way psychology… His mentation doesn’t follow linear logic but bursts into multi-sourced associative storms—“self-observation” catching fire.

“peaceful inner condition”

A rare and deep internal calm, experienced only once again in his life.

“relatively transferable arising…”

An ancient philosophical definition of the self as a process involving thought, feeling, and instinct.

“special cosmic substance”

The principle became a metaphysical force that settled throughout his being.

“ill-fated ‘I’… sad fact”

He realizes he is forever shaped by three external, accidental events.

In summary:

He is describing how a visceral experience—part physical, part mystical—led him to realize that his entire orientation in life was no longer his to determine. Instead, he was permanently structured by three unlikely yet decisive events, and would henceforth act in accordance with their imprint, not by lineage or environment.

• He begins with physical symptoms—itching spine and gut pain—as if a spiritual initiation comes disguised as illness.

• He refers to ancient philosophers to define the “I” but sidesteps formal doctrine, preferring lived realization.

• He names the three causes of his fate—all random and external—which seems to invert every conventional theory of personal development.

• He fuses mystical realization with absurdity—his destiny is fixed by a grandmother’s words, a bloody tooth, and a drunk’s joke.