Antecedentes teóricos generales

the dimension of one-to-one teacher pupil relationship (‗Individual Counselling‘ in the Prospectus). The more structured character of the Academy is relevant in this regard. However, Bennett‘s use of Gurdjieff‘s ―toasts to the Idiots‖ has been shown to be relevant here; and this also serves to emphasize how explicitly Bennett was willing to demonstrate his connection to Gurdjieff.

It can be concluded that Gurdjieff was the predominant antecedent influence on the training that took place at Sherborne. This influence can be discerned at four levels of activity:

 the fundamental starting point (people cannot do and cannot remember

themselves);

 the general methodology which was employed (e.g., self observation in groups, cosmological studies as an ethico-religious obligation );

 the specific methods which were employed (e.g., movements and inner exercises); and

 doctrine (especially the ideas in Beelzebub).

Moreover, the students must have become rapidly and increasingly certain that the training they were undergoing was the beginning of a path deriving directly from Gurdjieff. Bennett's use of the ―toasts to the Idiots‖ ritual (e.g., on Gurdjieff's birthday) must be taken as an explicit gesture indicating a definite continuity with Gurdjieff.

As anticipated in the introduction, the above conclusion is at variance in emphasis with the statement in the Institute's Prospectus that the praxis of the Academy was the fruit of years of eclectic development which had Gurdjieff's system as its starting point. There is certainly no question of casting doubt on the Institute's claim to have expended time and energy on the exploration of ‗non-Gurdjieffian‘ sources. – Indeed, as we shall see in subsequent chapters, an understanding of the other teachings which Bennett himself explored is of central significance to an understanding of what he brought to the Academy project and how this relates to the Gurdjieff teaching. – However, our survey of the Academy's training programme has strongly indicated that the Gurdjieff teaching had a far more central and practical significance to the existence of the Academy than an uninformed reading of the

Prospectus would suggest. Elizabeth Bennett – Bennett's wife, collaborator and

The teaching at these courses was based on the system of G.I.Gurdjieff, who my husband regarded as his teacher, with amplifications and additions of his own, derived from the personal work and experience of a long life searching for the means of transforming and developing the inner self of man.125

The balance of this statement seems to be in better accord with the findings, placing emphasis on the practical centrality of Gurdjieff's ideas to the teaching at the Academy.

„Receptive lines of Work‟

At this point the finding that Gurdjieff was the predominant antecedent influence on the teaching at Bennett‘s Academy requires some qualification. It must be noted that it does not, of itself, prove that his use of these practices was authentically ‗Gurdjieffian‘: it could be the case that Bennett‘s understanding of the Gurdjieff teaching was incorrect.126 _{Elizabeth Bennett refers to her husband having amplified}

certain aspects of Gurdjieff‘s teaching; and in this connection it is necessary to draw provisional attention to his emphasis on help, submission and grace as dimensions of the developmental path which are coequal with and complementary to effort and

discipline.127 _{Bennett spoke to his pupils at Sherborne of seven lines of work, of}

which three are ―active‖, three ―receptive‖ and one ―neutral‖, which must be in mutual balance if the overall endeavour is to be effective.128 _{He considered that this}

perspective was in line with Gurdjieff‘s teachings.129 _{However, it is the active lines –}

emphasizing effort and discipline – which are generally seen as characterizing the ‗Gurdjieffian path‘ and which the Foundation held to be pre-eminent throughout Bennett‘s lifetime.130 _{(Bennett‘s valuation of the ‗receptive lines‘ has an obvious}

connection to the idea of submission to the higher powers. I further highlight the ways in which his (‗heterodox‘) position – in emphasizing the receptive lines of work

as being inherent in the Gurdjieffian path – are closely related to the other main strands of his position at the end of the present chapter.)

Summary.

To summarize the discussion so far, we have identified three main antecedent strands all of which have a powerful bearing on Bennett's founding of the International Academy for Continuous Education:

i. Bennett experienced an inner call to ―found a school‖. He understood this call as originating from ―Higher Powers‖ to whose authority he was willingly obedient and for whose purpose he felt himself to be a vehicle. ii. He saw his personal history as the unfoldment of a destiny that was leading

up to this event. He was led to believe that he was now a Master – a person qualified to transmit spiritual teachings on his own authority.

iii. He saw the task with which his own destiny charged him as being intimately linked to that of G.I.Gurdjieff whom he considered to be the major formative influence on his life. This belief found particular realization in the Academy project which he saw both in terms of a

continuation of work started by Gurdjieff and as the fulfilment of an obligation arising from his personal debt to Gurdjieff.

In attempting to elucidate the relationship between ‗Bennett as Master‘ and Bennett as ‗pupil of Gurdjieff‘ (strands (ii) and (iii) above) we have established that Gurdjieff's ideas and methods were of central importance to the existence of the Academy. Whatever else the Academy may have been131 _{there is a sense in which it was}

‗strongly Gurdjieffian‘ in orientation. From the evidence of the activities at the Academy we can certainly agree with Bennett that he owed a great debt to

Gurdjieff.132 _{There also seems to be a tenable case for sustaining that the work at}

Sherborne had, in practical ways at least, continuity with Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man of the nineteen twenties. However, it is necessary to reiterate that, while the above survey has revealed much about the extent to which the Academy drew on Gurdjieff's ideas, it does not necessarily tell us anything about how much of the essence and totality of Gurdjieff's teaching was embodied in the Academy – i.e., we are not yet in a position to answer questions concerning the

authenticity of Bennett‘s Academy as a manifestation of the Gurdjieff teaching.

Whilst bearing in mind this limitation, it can be said that the similarity of form is in itself supportive of Bennett‘s claim that he was working within a field of activity (‗fourth way field‘) which was continuous with the work of Gurdjieff. That his understanding of Gurdjieff – whether right or wrong – had paramount practical significance for his work is established beyond any doubt.