The Enneagram: A Developmental Study

There is a lot of information about the Enneagram in the primary Gurdjieff materials. However it is rather esoteric and almost nothing that points to what we know about the system through the work of Ichazo, Naranjo, Ochs, or any of their students. The closest in my estimation are some of the writings of John G. Bennett, however Bennett’s authorization by Gurdjieff is murky.

Most of the close students of Gurdjieff do not support the iteration of the Enneagram teaching as proposed by Ichazo et al. Some like Mr. William Patrick Patterson mince no words.

Mr. James Moore was an authorized Gurdjieff teacher, and his paper, The Enneagram: A Developmental Study contains the most sympathetic view I could find. It is presented with no edits. There is a website dedicated to his work, JAMES MOORE HOME PAGE.

by James Moore

 

First published in 1987 and updated by the author in March 2004. Moore winnows the grain from the chaff in this discriminating examination of Gurdjeff’s problematic and best-known symbol.

 

The sea of faith, whose ‘melancholy, long withdrawing roar’ (1) was evoked metaphorically by the elegiac Victorian poet Matthew Arnold, is sweeping back, but in a hundred strange modalities. And though its waves are ostentatious, its eddies and undertows are obscure; and the charting of its cross-currents – these admixtures among religions old and new – is aided by certain discrete ‘marker-buoys’. This paper examples one, which – moored decades ago in the esoteric deep – has been swept leeward into the frothy shallows of pseudo-Sufism, ARICA, Transpersonal Psychology and liberal Catholicism. Our chosen marker is Gurdjieff’s problematic ‘enneagram’.

George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (c.1866-1949) was a writer, explorer, choreographer, psychologist, composer, physician, polyglot, entrepreneur, and spiritual teacher, who utterly eludes simplistic categorisation. But his ascendancy over many distinguished pupils, and his seminal importance in a variety of fields, are now challenged only by the most ill-informed or opinionated critics. 

The Enneagram

Gurdjieff’s integrated cosmological and psychological teaching has been described as ‘bewilderingly simple and sublimely, or absurdly complete’: (2) one small but disproportionately significant component was his enneagram, or nine-sided figure (3)– first presented to a private group of pupils in Moscow and Petrograd in 1916. Stressing the symbol’s importance, he demonstrated it as a dynamic model for synthesising, at macrocosmic and microcosmic level, his ‘Law of Three’ (4) and ‘Law of Seven’. (5) Later at Fontainebleau in 1922 he choreographed and taught the first of those many sacred dances (6) or ‘Movements’, whose beautiful but rigorously choreographed evolutions enact the enneagram. 

The subject is abstruse, certainly contentious, and not our real concern. All we need initially establish is that the enneagram was intrinsic and peculiar to Gurdjieff’s system of ideas, and unpromulgated before him. 

In effect, Gurdjieff did claim priority here, and persuasive in his favour is the enneagram’s perfect calibration with other uniquely Gurdjieffian models – those relating to cosmogony and cosmology, and to man’s assimilation of food, air, and sensory impressions. Nor has investigative scholarship yet produced a serious challenge. Consider Whitall Perry: this stern critic (7) of Gurdjieff is formidably armed with brickbats from oriental mystical literature, neo-Platonism, pseudo-Dionysius, Martinist, Rosicrucian and Masonic sources. Yet even he backed by all the academic resources of the Guénon-Schuon philosophical school (8) fails to adduce a precedent for the enneagram. Consider James Webb: no independent scholar worked more doggedly to unearth the provenance of Gurdjieff’s ideas. Yet all his efforts to tease the enneagram out of cognate materia in the Kabbalah, in the Ars Magna of Ramon Lull (c. 1232-1315), and the Arithmologia of the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680), seem finally as implausible as they are laboured. Consider J. G. Bennett: no Gurdjieffian became more personally and passionately involved in the search. Yet his convoluted argument that the enneagram ‘ . . . originated with the Sarmãn society about 2500 years ago and was revised when the power of the Arabic numeral system was developed in Samarkand in the fifteenth century’, (9) is projected with no hint of intellectual vigilance, and supported by no scrap of textual or archaeological evidence. 

Conclusion: although some future revelation cannot be ruled out, we may meanwhile decently hypothesise that the enneagram is sui generis and G. I. Gurdjieff, if not its author, is at least its first modern proponent. We have a valid anthropological marker. 

The Authorised Version

For more than thirty years (a longish spell with new religions), the enneagram remained hermetically sealed within its Gurdjieffian ambit. In Paris at the Salle Pleyel Gurdjieff gave it hauntingly beautiful expression in dance. In England profound commentaries were meditated (but not published) by his distinguished pupils, the Russian writer Piotr Demianovich Ouspensky (1878-1947) and the psychoanalyst Dr Maurice Nicoll (1884-1953). 

On 29 October 1949 Gurdjieff died, and the ensuing three years saw a natural dissemination (10) of hitherto recondite material. His original enneagram exposition, supplemented by Ouspensky’s commentary, was embodied in the latter’s brilliant recapitulation of Gurdjieff’s larger teaching; in May 1950 enneagram dances were included in the programme shown publicly by Gurdjieff’s pupils at the Fortune Theatre, Drury Lane, London; and finally in 1952 came the publication of Dr Nicoll’s 14 enneagram dissertations. These four manifestations represent, if anything can, the hieroglyph’s ‘authorised version’, and whatever one’s view of symbolism, sacred dance, or the enneagram in particular – it is hard to deny their integrity and essential dignity. On this sturdy and decent foundation however, a whole cluster of baroque enneagram ‘developments’ would soon be reared by ideological entrepreneurs. 

Heterodox Gurdjieffian Extrapolation

The first innovators were (in the broadest possible sense) Gurdjieffians. Rodney Collin-Smith (1909-1956), a precocious disciple of Ouspensky, emigrated to Mexico City and here in 1952 published The Theory of Celestial Influence (El Desarollo de la Luz). This astonishing work is essentially a Gurdjieffian Systema Universi, bearing comparison both in its audacity and ultimate implausibility with Bergson’s ‘Panpsychism’, Comte’s ‘Panhylism’ Fechner’s ‘Panentheism’, and Hegel’s ‘Cosmosophy’. Significantly for later developments, it gave the first account of the enneagram in Spanish, and contributed (11) to the formation of groups in Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay. 

The Gurdjieffian spirit, although unaligned with any specific religion, is essentially theistic and traditionalist: and in 1954 in Italy, Collin-Smith was received into the Roman Catholic Church. He now published his brief perfervid Christian Mystery, which tendentiously gives an enneagrammatic and astrological form to the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Christ. Needless to say, Rome took no formal cognisance of Collin-Smith, who died age 47 at Cuzco on 3 May 1956, probably by suicide. (12) Within the Gurdjieffian pantheon he remains at best an equivocal figure: in his speculations – brilliant perhaps – the enneagram begins to lose its aura of objectivity. 

Already, through our modest enneagram exhibit, we approach the more general dilemma of doctrine which challenges contemporary Gurdjieffians (as classically it challenges the custodians of any new teaching, once its protagonist is dead). Where lies the middle way between an indulgently ‘progressive’ exegesis and a moribund conservatism? ‘Every stick,’ as Gurdjieff was fond of saying, ‘has two ends.’ 

It was law-conformable that among Gurdjieff’s broad posterity two divergent schools arose, orthodox and heterodox. In England they might respectively be personified by two eminent (13) men, Kenneth Walker (1882-1966) and John Godolphin Bennett (1897-1974). Contrast them in 1957. This was the year in which Bennett at his Institute (14) in Coombe Springs opened his Djamichunatra, (15) a lofty study hall, oriented towards Gurdjieff’s grave, and having, like the enneagram, nine sides; it was a year which found him well embarked on The Dramatic Universe, his own Brobdingagnian Systema Universi, permeated by enneagrammatic speculation. It was also however the year which saw publication of Walker’s eagerly awaited Study of Gurdjieff’s Teaching,(16_ which added to the enneagram canon – precisely nothing. 

Nearly fifty years have come and gone, yet from the orthodox Gurdjieff school (17) scarcely a fresh word on the enneagram has emerged into the public domain. They have cherished the authorised version; they have laboured – some more than others – to deepen their understanding of it; above all they have brought it to vibrant life in dance, and recorded that silence. 

           The heterodox faction – mostly inspired by Bennett – have grown more incontinent as they dwindled in numbers and influence. Largely abjuring Gurdjieff’s cosmological and metaboldance on film (18) which it would be an impertinence to praise. But being justifiably concerned that spiritual glasnost would only replenish the ‘Schachermacher-workshop-booths’ (19) of popular charlatans, they have maintained – in the face of each new provocation – their deep ic synthesis, they have unexpectedly preferred themes of management, industry and science: in 1963 Clarence E. King perceived the enneagram at play in the engineering division of Vauxhall Motors; (20) in 1966 Kenneth Pledge, more persuasively, calibrated it with Newton’s prism deviation experiment and the corresponding spectrometer experiment; (21) in 1974 Bennett himself published his controversial anthology The Enneagram, exampling the symbol in the kitchen; in 1978 Irmis Popoff found it relevant to consumer product testing; and in 1987 Saul Kuchinsky confidently applied it across the whole managerial spectrum. (22) Speculations of this species have proliferated and indeed toppled over into a new century. 

  And their validity? Intuition is not slow to suggest an answer. Yet if the poor heterodox Gurdjieffians are to be accused of reckless and feeble subjectivism (as they sometimes are), council for the defence might plead in mitigation that they strove, however clumsily, to relate to Gurdjieff’s writings, and to respect – in its many implications and constraints – the specific geometric and arithmetic morphology of his symbol. Such a deference and such a discipline hardly commended itself to the self-anointed ‘enneagram experts’ who quickly arose outside Gurdjieffian circles. 

Non-Gurdjieffian Appropriations

All that was meretricious in the nouvelle orientalism of the 1960s, facilitated an impudent collusion by a small cabal of Home County pseudo-Sufis to denigrate Gurdjieff – the better to suggest that the half Scottis, half Afghan ‘Grand Sheikh’ Idries Abutahir Shah (1924- ) had somehow assumed his mantle. (23) They worked through rumour and pseudonymous writing; through half-truth, historical revisionism, and the usurpation of Gurdjieffian ideological talismans. (24) 

The want of a credible ‘proto-enneagram’ even within the incomparable treasure-house of traditional Islamic geometry was happily supplied (as so often in Shah’s ambit) by imagination:

On a wall faced with white Afghan marble, delineated in polished rubies glowed the symbol of the community. This is the mystical ‘No-Koonja’, the ninefold Naqschor ‘Impress’ . . . (25)

The casual generalist may be forgiven for viewing such passages (and they abound) (26) merely as nondescript oriental Kitsch: but the Gurdjieffian and the anthropologist – construing them within a broader complex of coded allusions, almost tantamount to a metalanguage – identifies a specific and tendentious claim. In effect Gurdjieff’s enneagram – ignobly shorn of functional significance – is being appropriated as some sort of pseudo-Sufic trademark. 

The enneagram’s final descent to a level of spiritual vaudeville affords only the bitter-sweet consolation of humour. That the symbol, for example, has been so aggressively marketed throughout South and North America, is due respectively to the Instituto de Gnoselogia (founded Arica, Chile 1968) and the ARICA Institute, Inc. (founded New York 1971). Neither enterprise is remotely Gurdjieffian. Each was instigated by the clever Bolivian ideological opportunist Oscar Ichazo, who is instructed by Metraton the prince of archangels, guided by the Green Qu’tub, and his removed his karmic nodules by massaging his left foot with the handle of a mixing spoon.(27) 

These dubious advertisements aside, it is arguable that Ichazo’s methodology and typology should be independently situated and evaluated within the extravagant complex of American eupsychian therapies (Synanon games, T-groups, Erhard Seminar Training, encounter groups, Transactional Analysis, Myers-Briggs personality inventory etc.) which, as Theodore Roszak points out, (28) owe so much to Gurdjieff yet acknowledge so little. But Ichazo himself forfeits independence by placing the enneagram at the centre of his system – and moreover in a manner which tests, virtually to destruction, one’s neutrality of viewpoint. 

The symbol’s exterior form has been copied without the smallest grasp of its interior dynamic: a conceptual instrument developed to transport objective ideas, is flatly reproduced as a means for coaxing down some personal advantage. Analogically Ichazo’s enneagram is to Gurdjieff’s what the New Guinea cargo-cults are to aviation. Ichazo’s 63 ‘domains, energies, divine principles, fixations, virtues, passions, and psychocatalyzers’ seem stuck around the symbol au choix like so many bird-of-paradise feathers. 

The Bolivian implausibly claims to have discovered the ‘enneogon’ and its arcane meanings independently; (29) his pupil John C. Lilly, an authority on dolphins, (30) chimes in misleadingly, ‘ . . . the enneagram is a device used by the Sufi school and developed by Ichazo.’ (31) By a sort of spiritual Gresham’s Law, it is this pastiche and commercialised version which has gained ascendancy in our contemporary world; which is enriching its proponents; which begins to infiltrate British Universities; (32) which is taught indeed in Roman Catholic retreats. (33) Perhaps it is unsurprising that a facile psychometric typology commends itself to Californian freshmen: but its uncritical acceptance at professorial level, and still worse by the spiritual heirs of St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus – this is sobering indeed. Gurdjieff himself jocularly foresaw a moment when his work would ‘be read in Pope’s palace’, (34) but hardly in the form of travesty. 

CONCLUSION

The symbolic corollaries to religious, political, artistic and literary movements are not historically negligible. Whether the enneagram in particular will sustain its present momentum, and even emerge from the ruck of contemporary symbols, very much remains to be seen: one might already concede it some resilience and adaptive qualities. Then does it matter that most modern exegesis is trivial and preposterous, and as much resembles the original ‘as a nail is like a requiem’? (35) The answer depends on one’s point of view. Clearly it does not matter a jot to those exploiting the symbol; and little if anything to the value-free anthropologist. But predictable indifference in these quarters does not oblige the more engaged commentator to emulate Mathew Arnold and ‘bring the eternal note of sadness in’. (36) For if Gurdjieff’s model lacks fundamental integrity, its corruption cannot concern us: and if, on the contrary, it is one of those rare symbols which encapsulate and transmit a new idea of awakening power, it will survive even its wildest extrapolators and apologists: some spirits at least, first meeting the enneagram in debased pastiche, will instinctively turn for a truer perspective to Gurdjieff’s original teaching. Perhaps on that formidable ground, an infinitely more intelligent, infinitely more responsible, exegesis could now be raised. Certainly it is overdue. 

 

First published in Religion Today: A Journal of Contemporary Religions (London) 

V (3), October 1986-January 1987, pp.1-5.

james.moore@easynet.co.uk

 

 

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Original Formulation

1949. G. I. Gurdjieff. Quoted by P. D. Ouspensky In Search of the Miraculous. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 399p., pp. 286-95. 

Orthodox Gurdjieffian Commentaries

1949. P. D. Ouspensky. Ibid.pp. 376-8. 

1952. Maurice Nicoll. Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of G. I. Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky. Three Volumes. Vincent Stewart, 1766p., Vol. 2, pp. 373-438. 

 

Heterodox Gurdjieffian Speculation

1954. Rodney Collin-Smith. The Theory of Celestial Influence. Vincent Stewart, 392p., passim.

1954. Rodney Collin-Smith. The Christian Mystery. Mexico City: Ediciones Sol, 24p.

1956-1966. John Godolphin Bennett. The Dramatic Universe.Four Volumes, Hodder & Stoughton, 1667 p., passim. 

1974. John Godolphin Bennett. The Enneagram. Coombe Springs Press, 1974, 64p.; amplified edition retitled Enneagram Studies. Weiser, 1983, 133p. 

1978. Irmis B. Popoff. The Enneagramma of the Man of Unity. Weiser, 96p. 

 

Non-Gurdjieffian Appropriations

1972. Oscar Ichazo. The Human Process for Enlightenment and Freedom: A Series of Five Lectures. New York: Arica Institute Inc, 120p. 

1975. Charles T. Tart (ed.). Transpersonal Psychologies. New York: Harper & Row, 485p. Contains ‘The Arica Training’ by John C. Lilly and Joseph E. Hart, pp. 330-351. 

1982. Oscar Ichazo. Between Metaphysics and Protoanalysis: A Theory for Analysing the Human Psyche. New York: Arica Institute Inc. 

1984. Marian Beesing O. P., Robert J. Nogosek C. S. C., and Patrick O’Leary S. J. The Enneagram: A Journey of Self-Discovery. New Jersey: Dimension Books Inc. 

1987. Barbara Metz S. N. D. de N. and John Burchill O. P. The Enneagram and Prayer: Discovering Our True Selves Before God. New Jersey: Dimension Books Inc. 

 

NOTES

 

---

1 From ‘Dover Beach’ (1867) the most celebrated poem of Mathew Arnold (1822-1888), English critic and professor of poetry at Oxford University.

2 Richard Rees. ‘Monsieur Gurdjieff’ The Twentieth Century. Vol. 164, No. 981. Nov. 1958, p. 440. 

3To construct Gurdjieff’s enneagram: describe a circle: divide its circumference into nine equal parts: successively number the dividing points clockwise from 1 to 9, so that 9 is uppermost: join points 9, 3, and 6 to form an equilateral triangle with 9 at the apex: join the residual points in the successive order 1, 4, 2, 8, 5, and 7 to form an inverted hexagon (symmetrical about an imaginary diameter struck perpendicular from 9). 

In relation to the digits 3 and 7 – which in Gurdjieff’s model, as in mystical systems generally, are crucially significant – the sequence 142857 has noteworthy properties (lost incidentally when transposed to notations other than denary). It deploys all digits except 3 and its multiples. As a recurring decimal, it results from dividing 1 (The Monad) by 7. Its cyclical progression yields every decimalised proper seventh (thus 2 sevenths = .285714: 3 sevenths = . 428571 and so on). 

4 Named by Gurdjieff ‘Triamazikamno’, the Law of Three is a ubiquitous sacred dialect, built around his formulation ‘The higher blends with the lower in order to actualise the middle and thus becomes either higher for the preceding lower, or lower for the succeeding higher’. (See Beelzebub’s Tales, 1950, p. 751 passim.)

5 Named by Gurdjieff ‘Heptaparaparshinokh’. The Law of Seven defies précis. Centred on the idea of the ubiquitous discontinuity of vibrations, it has correlates with the Western musical scale (and more problematically with quantum theory and the periodic table of the elements, though Gurdjieff did not adduce these). (See Gurdjieff, ibid., p. 755 ff., passim). 

6 Gurdjieff perceived himself not least as a teacher of dancing, and the enneagram as a moving symbol. In many of his dances, individual and ensemble displacements are precisely governed by the enneagram. The word ‘Movements’, which in 1928 replaced the term ‘exercises’ in Gurdjieffian vocabulary, evidently now embraces seven discrete categories: the six preliminary exercises or ‘Obiligatories’; women’s dances; rhythms (harmonic, plastic and occupational); ritual exercises and medical gymnastics; men’s ethnic dances e.g. Dervish and Tibetan; sacred temples dances and tableaux; and the 39 Movements of Gurdjieff’s last series. 

7 Whitall N. Perry Gurdjieff in the Light of Tradition, Perennial Books, 1978 (first serialised as three instalments in Studies in Comparative Religion during the Autumn of 1974 and the Winter and Spring of 1975) constitutes the most considered intellectual attack on Gurdjieff to date. His charges of exclusivism, obscurantism, and anti-traditionalism, have been contested by Michel de Salzmann, K. E. Steffens, and James Moore. 

8 The hostility of René Guénon to Gurdjieff had a personal basis (see James Webb,The Harmonious Circle, Thames & Hudson, 1980, p. 467). For biographical detail see Robin Waterfield, René Guénon, Crucible, 1987, 160p.). The brilliant philosophical school overtly indebted to Frithjof Schuon (‘Isa Nuruddin’) – and to Guénon through the Alawiyya dervishes of Morocco – reinstituted attacks on Gurdjieff in 1972. Ironically Guénon’s and Schuon’s books (and those by associated figures like Titus Burckhart, Ananda Coomeraswamy, Martin Lings, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Marco Pallis, Whitall Perry and so on) receive more sympathetic attention in certain Gurdjieffian circles than anywhere else. 

9 John Godolphin Bennett, Gurdjieff: Making a New World, Turnstone, 1973, 320p., p. 293. 

10 In January 1949 Gurdjieff sanctioned posthumous publication of Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous (an account of Ouspensky’s discipleship, essentially comprising Gurdjieff’s direct and reported speech). He also urged forward publication of his own magnum opus,Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1950, 1238p.); this work, although not explicitly referring to the enneagram, contains (in Chapters XXXIX and XL) the deepest exposition of the laws it encapsulates. 

11 The strength and prevalence of Gurdjieff groups in South and Central America is largely owed to the direct influence of orthodox Gurdjieffians from France, England, and the USA – commencing shortly after Gurdjieff’s death. 

12 An idealised account of Collin-Smith’s death appears in a postscript to his book The Theory of Conscious Harmony, Vincent Stewart, 1958, 212p., pp 187-8. A less inhibited version is offered in The Harmonious Circle, Thames & Hudson, 1980, 608p., pp. 494-6 by the rationalist historian James Webb (who tragically took his own life on 8 May 1980.) 

13 Walker was a man of wide culture and three times Hunterian Professor of Surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons. Bennett was a polyglot and mathematician; his speculative paper ‘Unified Field Theory in a Curvature-Free Five-Dimensional Manifold’ (written with R. L. Brown and M. W. Thring) was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in July 1949. As J. B. Priestly wrote, ‘The level of Gurdjieff’s . . . most devoted students was very high. In order to study this movement, nobody will have to do any intellectual slumming.’ 

14 Bennett’s Institutefor the Comparative Study of History, Philosophy and the Sciences Ltdwas incorporated on 22 May 1946. By 1954 Bennett had broken from the Gurdjieffian mainstream to purse an eclectic line: he used his Institute to promote several cults (notably Subud and pseudo-Sufism), which were neither mutually consistent nor compatible with Gurdjieff’s ideas. See Bennett’s autobiography Witness, Turnstone, revd. ed 1975, 385p.

15 For fuller detail see James Moore, ‘Neo-Sufism: The Case of Idries Shah’ Religion TodayVol 3, No. 3, note 30. For photographs of the Djamichunatra,, see various editions of J. G. Bennett’s autobiography, Witnessibid. 

16 Kenneth Walker, A Study of Gurdjieff’s Teaching, Jonathan Cape, 1957, 221p. 

17 Albeit 'orthodox Gurdjieffian school' remains a taxonomic signifier which is useful and salutary in many contexts, the growing need for interpretative vigilance is manifest from recent untoward episodes within the Gurdjieffian communion. The delineation of orthodox and heterodox groupings in James Moore's ‘Gurdjieffian Groups in Britain’ [Religion TodayVol. 3 (No. 2)] published in May 1986, has become largely outdated. More perennially relevant may prove his 'Moveable Feasts: The Gurdjieff Work'[Religion Today Vol.9 (No.2) spring 1994] with its principled differentiation of (i) an orthodoxy fixedly arrogated to itself in institutional and nomenclatural terms, as against (ii) an orthodoxy validated, however fragilely, in terms of Gurdjieffian historicity and traditional praxis. Here Moore examples inter alia the problematical 1992 revision of the English-language text of Gurdjieff's magnum opus Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (since withdrawn from circulation), which drew widespread criticism as stylistically vapid, ideologically revisionist, and socially divisive. Paradoxically it sprang from the fountainhead of orthodoxy, namely Mme Jeanne de Salzmann and her Gurdjieff Foundations: yet was far-sightedly opposed by broadly heterodox Gurdjieffian figures like Annie Lou Staveley and even (at the earliest feasibility stage) by J.G. Bennett. 

18 A substantial effort of the traditional Gurdjieff groups over the last 35 years has been to create and preserve for the future, a visual record of Gurdjieff’s Sacred Dance and Movements. At a considerable expense of time, effort, and money, some 10 archival films have been made in Paris by the French, English, and American groups, collaborating together under the supervision of Gurdjieff’s senior pupil Jeanne de Salzmann (1889-1990). None of these films, from the heart of Gurdjieff’s teaching, are as yet in the public domain, but semi-public showings have recently begun (eg. in London on 14 June 1987). Here is a major quandary for Gurdjieffians: on the one hand they feel certain these films would ‘nourish the times’; on the other hand they readily identify forces and agencies which would appropriate, copy, and corrupt the material, for artistic and even for commercial purposes. Thus the only fragment so far released to the general public is the last 10 minutes of Peter Brook’s (1979) adaptation of Gurdjieff’s autobiography Meetings with Remarkable Men. 

19 Gurdjieff, Beelzebub’s Tales, op cit.,p. 1188. 

20 Clarence E. King, ‘The Systematics of a Manufacturing Process’, Systematics, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 111. 

21 Kenneth Pledge, ‘Structured Process in Scientific Experiment’, Systematics, Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 304. 

22 Evidently the American business milieu is a unique field for cultivating a debased Gurdjieffianity. Charles Krone, a Carmel organisational consultant personally unconnected with Gurdjieff or his senior pupils, reportedly indoctrinated the 67,000 employees of Pacific Bell Inc. with his ‘Standard Leadership Development’ programme: Krone candidly acknowledges his fundamental reliance on J. G. Bennett’s (debatable) version of Gurdjieff’s ideas. See Kathleen Pender, ‘Pac Bell’s New Way to Think’, San Francisco Chronicle 23 March 1987, p. 1, 6. Ms. Pender implies that similar programmes are in progress or planned at Dupont, Scott Paper, Certain Teed – and in the UK at I.C.I. 

23 See (i) L. P. Elwell-Sutton, ‘Sufism & Pseudo-Sufism’, Encounter, Vol. XLIV, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 9-17 and the series of fifteen lively letters under various headings relating to Gurdjieff and Sufism between August 1975 and March 1976 from among others, Michael Currer-Briggs, James Moore, John Pentland and James Webb; and (ii) James Moore, ‘Neo-Sufism: The Case of Idries Shah’, Religion Today, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 4-8. 

24 Another Gurdjieffian talisman exploited by the Shah-School was the putative ‘Sarmoung Brotherhood’. Shah also followed Gurdjieff in his enthusiasm for Mullah Nassr Eddin, the medieval wise fool of Turkish folklore. 

25 Major Desmond R. Martin (? Pseud.) ‘Below the Hindu Kush’, The Lady Vol. CLXII, No. 4210, 9 Dec. 1965, p. 870. 

26 cf. ‘Rafael Lefort’ (pseud.) The Teachers of Gurdjieff, Gollancz, 1966, 151p., p. 23. And, Taslim (? Pseud.) ‘A Reconnaissance – Why I Travelled’ in The Diffusion of Sufi Ideas in the West: An Anthology of New Writings by and about Idries Shah (ed. L. Lewin) Institute for Research on the Dissemination of Human Knowledge, 1972, 212 p., pp. 158-9. 

27 These unusual claims are made on Ichazo’s behalf by John C. Lilly and Joseph E. Hart in ‘The Arica Training’ in Transpersonal Psychologies(ed. Charles T. Tart) Harper & Row, 1975, 485 p.; 1977, 504 p., p. 329-351, see p. 341 and p. 346. 

28 Theodore Roszak, Unfinished Animal: The Aquarian Frontier and the Evolution of Consciousness, New York: Harper & Row, 1975, 271p., p. 139. 

29 See Interviews with Oscar Ichazo, New York: Arica Institute Press, 1982, 190 p., passim. Significantly however major Gurdjieff enneagram disquisitions were available in Spanish throughout South America, before Ichazo published his first book. 

30 Dr Lilly, a former associate in residence at Esalen Institute, Big Sur, California, is the author of Man and Dolphin (1961) and The Mind of the Dolphin(1967). He spent two and a half months in a ‘living-in situation’ with Margaret Howe and a dolphin called Peter; and ten years working with isolation tanks and LSD. He converted to Ichazo in 1970. 

31 Lilly and Hart, op. cit., p. 333. 

32 Especially in the USA. A recent British case was Shree Pickar’s workshop ‘The Enneagram: Symbol for Personal Transformation’ held on 13-14 October 1984, under the auspices of the University of Surrey. Ms. Pickar formerly led workshops for Claudio Naranjo, the Chilean psychiatrist and authority on drug states. 

33 In the USA ‘Enneagram workshops’, loosely based on Ichazo’s adaptation, have for approximately for eight years been given by Jesuits, Dominicans, and various women’s orders. In the UK these characteristically take place under the auspices of the Roman Catholic National Retreat Movement at Cenacle houses in London, Dublin, Liverpool, Bristol, and Hindhead. 

34 Gurdjieff quoted by John Godolphin Bennett in his autobiography Witness: the Story of a Search, Hodder & Stoughton, 1962, 381p., p. 271. 

35 Mullah Nassr Eddin quoted by Gurdjieff Beelzebub’s Tales, op. cit., p. 13. 

36 Arnold loc. cit.

 

 

~ * ~

 

 

 

Special Note on relevant 1987-2003 developments.

 

In appending below a provisional recapitulation of some significant developments touching on the typological enneagram, I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Gurdjieff bibliographer and independent scholar J. Walter Driscoll, for sharing his knowledge of developments in the U.S.A.

 

 

1988 Helen Palmer publishes ‘The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others in Your Life ‘(Harper).

1990 Oscar Ichazo's lawsuit against Helen Palmer for copyright infringement of his "Enneagon" is dismissed.

1992 Religion Today Vol.7 (No.2) (London). Anthony C. Edwards publishes ‘Competitiveness and Apartheid in the New Age: the Enneagram Schools’, rashly lending academic weight to the misinformation promoted by successive proponents of the personality analysis industry, namely that indeterminate Sufic schools, not Gurdjieff, originated the enneagram.

1992 Religion Today Vol.8 (No.1) (London). James Moore publishes ‘New Lamps for Old: The Enneagram Débâcle’ challenging Anthony C. Edwards representations and emphasising Gurdjieff as the enneagram’s protagonist.

1993-1994 Gnosis # 30 Winter issue, News & Notes: ‘Enneagram Enters Halls of Academe’ announces that Helen Palmer's Center for Enneagram Studies and Stanford University's Business School will host the first International Enneagram Conference. (Addressing Conference, Kathleen Speeth unexpectedly warns of the “potential for harm" inherent in using the typological enneagram, adding that she herself will discontinue teaching it publicly.)

1994 Claudio Naranjo publishes Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View, a scholarly if laboured apologia for Ichazo’s contentious enneagram of personality types. 

1994 Gnosis: a Journal of the Western Inner Traditions (San Francisco) Summer Issue # 32 carries feature ‘Why the Enneagram: an interview with Helen Palmer’

1995 Helen Palmer publishes The Enneagram in Love & Work: Understanding Your Intimate & Business Relationships. (Harper). 

1996 A.G.E. Blake publishes The Intelligent Enneagram [Shambhala], a unique and honourable attempt to calibrate Gurdjieff’s enneagram with numerous scientific, philosophical, and spiritual paradigms. Audacious, cerebral, and heavy going. 

1996 Gnosis (San Francisco) Fall 1996 Issue carries feature ‘The Distorted Enneagram: interview with Claudio Naranjo’ in which he indicates “my main interest in learning from Oscar Ichazo was the conviction that he was the link to the Sarmouni - the school behind Gurdjieff." (The interviewer, O. M. C. Parkin suggests that "Ichazo has retreated to Hawaii and, apart from an interview with L. A. Weekly in 1993, has remained almost silent in public.")   

1997 Gnosis Magazine (San Francisco) #42, Winter, features a revealing correspondence section "Special Forum: The Enneagram in Contention": Helen Palmer defends herself against Claudio Naranjo's accusations of her "misappropriating the enneagram oral tradition":

Nicolas Tereschenko stresses that "Mr. Gurdjieff himself never gave his pupils any indication of this low-levels application of the enneagram”; Claudio Naranjo closes with a terse refusal to rebut criticism.

1998 William Patrick Patterson Taking with the Left Hand(Arete Communications) Part 1: ‘How the Enneagram Came to Market’ offers a racy and adversarial recapitulation of the links among Ichazo, Naranjo, Palmer et al, distancing that entire lineage from Gurdjieff’s original teaching.

 

~ * ~

Copyright © James Moore 1987, 2004

Retrieved from www.Gurdjeiff-Bibliography.com

Muddied Roots, Psychobabble, Inoculation

Originally posted April 11th, 2007

April 3rd, Easter Sunday, 2021

 

The uncritical acceptance of claims from distant "authorized” sources of the Enneagram is simply sloppy thinking. Standing on shaky ground and appealing to authority to prove that one way is more "authentic" or “righter” points to nasty rivalry. In this essay I will examine some of the claims about the origin of the Enneagram that began to appear about 35 years ago, and have subsequently been repeated, embellished, and distorted. But first I will try to describe the context for Naranjo’s introduction of the Enneagram.

 

SAT, Berkeley, California 1971-1976 

 

When I joined SAT in 1973, most of us did not look on Claudio Naranjo as a guru. I was so wary of being branded as a Moonie that I only allowed myself to think of him as an extraordinary professor—not the Teacher of the Age, not an enlightened being, and certainly not an avatar. I was aware that he had had a profound insight, perhaps even an enlightenment experience that tied together long years of study and psychological investigation while he was working with Óscar Ichazo in Arica, Chile, and I was simply grateful to be present while he unpacked that inspiration. 

 

The number of people in the first SAT groups ranged between 35 and 50. We came from all walks of life; there were psychologists, a Jesuit priest and a Franciscan Friar, two seminarians, one former nun, a devotee of Swami Rudrananda, a rabbi’s wife, and one woman who’d been associated with the Gurdjieff Foundation; professors, several Phd.’s, two medical doctors, school teachers, at least one lawyer, more than a handful of psychology graduate students, body workers, therapists, a film-maker, a martial artist, a C-level New York fashion executive, Ravi Shankar’s mother-in-law, one professional journalist and a film distributor, but there were also carpenters, house painters and a French hippie. We were mostly white, gay and straight, a large proportion of Jews, one Muslim and a few asians. Claudio turned no one away.

 

We met on Tuesday and Thursday nights for 3 to 3 and half hours, with at least one Saturday day-long session a month plus several longer retreats each year. Claudio worked with us mostly in a group setting. His original presentations were dense; they required time to digest and put to use. His directions, or indications were for everyone but, particularly when he worked in the manner of Fritz Perls, he focused on the individual student and his or her fixation. He talked with us, asked questions, responded to our questions, returned us over and over to our own interior spaces where he thought we might profitably investigate, and, as he said to me, “discover a rich vein.” 

 

It was an oral tradition. There were no texts though there were Enneagram diagrams with simple notation which most of us used to scribble down our own observations. We all kept notes; we shared and compared them with each other. Detailed notes with full sentences were highly regarded, and there were several meticulous recorders. In addition to Claudio’s presentations, people also circulated Óscar’s proto-analysis from people who’d traveled to Arica Chile. I mention these notes because they became the basis of the wider study by the small group of Jesuits and other religious who began to use the Enneagram in Chicago under the tutelage of Bob Ochs, SJ and  Aubrey Degnan as well as the New Age audience who began to work with Helen Palmer. Enneagram literature did not start flooding the market for another 10 years.

 

We also promised not to speak about the Enneagram outside the group because, we were told, confidentiality was integral to self-discovery. We promised not to use certain ‘teachings’ until we’d received permission from Claudio. This was mainly intended  for work that we would do with others, although, in some instances, that promise included our private conversations with group members. The initial intent was not to protect materials and income as intellectual property, but it did set the stage for later lawsuits. Now that both Claudio and Bob Ochs have died, and so much material is already public, I feel no obligation to remain silent. 

 

 

Fact or hearsay about the Enneagon/Enneagram’s Sufi origins 

 

There was talk about the Enneagram originating hundreds of years earlier in a Sufi school, but I just nodded my head in agreement with a vague notion that there were, of course, esoteric roots. It made little difference. For me, like most of Claudio’s early students, the profound experiences of self-recognition proved the power of the teaching. 

 

Some did speak of “The Work” and “The School” in almost reverential tones which was an acknowledgement of the teaching of Mr. Gurdjieff and its Sufi origins. Most of the written accounts of the Enneagram teaching in the West repeat the claim of an esoteric teaching handed down through the Naqshbandi Sufi School which was founded around 1380. The great light of Sufism in the West, Idries Shah, confirmed that the symbol, the nine-pointed figure, existed in the Naqshbandi line. The figure of the Enneagram is also found in the record of Mr. Gurdjieff’s teaching—which of course lends the authority from another respected source. 

 

The existence of a distinctive figure only demonstrates the probability of Sufi origin, perhaps adopted by the Naqshbandi. It indicates nothing about the secret origin of any four Enneagrams—Fixations, Passions, Virtues, or Holy Ideas—that Ichazo introduced and Naranjo elaborated. 

 

What chance is there that this Enneagram has been passed down from an identifiable school, even as a secret teaching? Can we find traces of that secret? 

 

Mr. Gurdjieff’s use of the Enneagram 

 

G. I. Gurdjieff wrote: "The knowledge of the enneagram has for a very long time been preserved in secret and if it now is, so to speak, made available to all, it is only in an incomplete and theoretical form of which nobody could make any practical use without instruction from a man who knows." 

 

We know that Mr. Gurdjieff used the Enneagram, that he praised it, that he said that it expressed all the universal laws, that his students had a series of sacred movements that followed the directional lines of the figure. The picture at the top of this essay is that sacred dance. There is, however, no evidence in the primary sources about the Work that he used the Enneagram/Enneagon of Fixations, Passions, Virtues, or Holy Ideas. 

 

Gurdjieff’s pupil P.D. Ouspensky recorded comments about the Enneagram in his book, In Search of The Miraculous (1949), and another famous pupil, John Bennett, applied the Enneagram of Process to systems theory, organizational design, group dynamics, and psychotherapy. Neither of these sources, however, specifically point to protoanalysis or the system that Claudio or Óscar describe. 

 

Claudio was conversant with Mr. Gurdjieff’s work, his writing and that of his important disciples. For Claudio, Gurdjieff was the epitome of teacher as trickster, a role that Claudio loved. But he never claimed that he had been trained or authorized by any of Gurdjieff’s successors. 

 

But to my mind, the most interesting possible evidence that Gurdjieff might have used the Enneagram comes from some of the personal accounts of pupils in France and America. In Teachings of Gurdjieff: A Pupil's Journey, C. S. Nott describes Mr. Gurdjieff’s efforts with one student to identify her “chief characteristic” before she had to return to England. Mr. Gurdjieff directed her, but the struggle to identify the lynch pin in her personality was her task and only hers. It was, he said, the key to her self-remembering. Perhaps Gurdjieff used the 27 variations of a nine-pointed figure in his exploration, but again we have no evidence. If he did, you might suspect that he passed that knowledge to his chief disciples, but any “evidence” that he did is just a guess and, in any case, bears scant resemblance to either Ichazo’s or Naranjo’s use of the Enneagram. 

 

In Taking with the Left Hand, How the Enneagram Came to Market (1996), William Patrick Patterson who is an authorized teacher in the Gurdjieff lineage writes a blistering account of what he considers the current Enneagram enthusiasts’ misappropriation of the Gurdjieff work, some of which I found persuasive until he tries to locate the Source of the Enneagram in ancient Egypt. If we have to start digging back that far into a mysterious history to support self-analysis, the enterprise is hopeless, and we are lost.

 

 

The difference between Ichazo’s Enneagon and the work of Naranjo 

 

If I were to imagine a best case scenario, Ichazo, during that first Arica training, might have sensed that Claudio had an insight that he had to explore—a vocation in the classical sense of a path that he had to follow to the end—and that the work itself would be richer. However, I can find no evidence for my scenario in any of Óscar’s writings that are available to the public. 

 

Claudio referenced  Óscar’s talks on the Enneagon and protoanalysis given at the Instituto de Psicologia Aplicada (Santiago) in 1969, and Óscar finds no fault in Claudio’s report. 

 

There is also no evidence that Óscar had any contact with a Fourth Way teacher, at least one connected directly with Gurdjieff or any of his disciples. James Moore wrote an article on the dissemination of the Enneagram in South America. (I've published this essay by one of the second generation of Gurdjieff's students in the UK). He concludes, “Analogically Ichazo’s enneagram is to Gurdjieff’s what the New Guinea cargo-cults are to aviation. Ichazo’s 63 ‘domains, energies, divine principles, fixations, virtues, passions, and psychocatalyzers’ seem stuck around the symbol au choix like so many bird-of-paradise feathers.” 1 

 

An Enneagram teacher, Subhuti, who was an early student of Óscar, says that Óscar “denied that he got the Enneagram symbol from Gurdjieff….Actually, the truth was more mundane: he got it from his uncle’s library. In a 1996 magazine interview, Ichazo explained that when he was 12-13 years old, he inherited an esoteric library from his uncle Julio, who was a philosopher….Ichazo hungrily devoured these books, hoping to find reassuring answers for his paranormal states. He came across the Enneagram symbol while studying an ancient text from the Chaldean civilization, which existed around 600 BC, in what is now known as Iraq, and whose citizens appear to have been fascinated by numbers.”2

 

The Arica Enneagon, both protoanalysis and the way that a student worked with it, was quite different from Claudio’s understanding and practice. I knew several Esalen pioneers who had been in Arica with Claudio. They reported that Óscar typed people by looking at their faces: a slight elevation of an eyebrow or crinkle around the mouth was as clear an indicator as any standardized personality test.

 

[Ichazo had 

The next day Jack tested this theory by showing Óscar a bunch (40 or so) of self-typed enneagrammer photos; he insisted Jack put the type the individuals thought they were on the photo. Jack would have preferred Óscar would type them straight, and Jack could later compare. But cagey as Óscar was, he insisted. Ok so he agreed with about 40% of them as being typed accurately--not a very high % but definitely better than a casual 11% chance of blind guessing.  Jack later sent the same photos to an advanced student of Ichazo’s, who was presumed to be good at this, and he disagreed with Ichazo’s conclusions in more than 50% of the cases. So much for the reliability of this system. Even if Ichazo was 70-100% right, he was not successful in transmitting that skill to his students.

 

After a lot of discussion and comparison of typing, several of the people who had been in Arica with the first Esalen group concluded that Óscar used a different Enneagram, which he called the Enneagon.3

 

[A decade or two after Jack’s visit with Óscar, he started using enneagram instead of enneagon as if surrendering to the fact that “enneagon” did not manage to “neuter” enneagram and thus send all the enneagrammers flocking to Arica.] 

 

Óscar by his own admission had no dispute with Claudio’s Enneagram teaching, but by the same token, he did not authorize Claudio’s work. Óscar’s lawsuit was directed at Helen Palmer’s popularization, not Claudio’s work from which she derived her materials. (ARICA INSTITUTE, INC. v. Helen PALMER and Harper & Row Publishers is online). Claudio did not alter the derogatory names of the points that Óscar used to identify each fixation, though Helen created a whole new “kinder, gentler” lexicon. Was she just changing the names to refine a pedagogical technique or was this an attempt to avoid the intellectual property rights lawsuit that eventually transpired? Don Richard Riso and anyone else who feared Arica lawsuits also altered the names. 

 

But my question is whether the impulse to alter other things, a little here and there, to avoid charges of intellectual property theft distort the teaching? Did Helen wind up off base as Óscar claims? Here is what he had to say about Helen’s version of the Enneagram (and others who follow the Narrative tradition). “The work of the enneagram authors is plainly unscientific and without rational foundation, because it is based on dogmatic formulations as opposed to the Arica system, which under any measure is logical and scientific and is based on rational metaphysical propositions and ultimate theological truth.” 4 This statement can of course be disputed as Óscar can’t call his formulation scientifically provable and solid given that he himself claims to have created/originated many of the ideas. How can Mozart claim originality of his music as also being scientific, as the exact tunes were not recorded before? 

 

Óscar or his deputies typed the student while Claudio’s typing was conversational, investigating together with the person. Only after a period of study, Claudio typed you. If you thought you demonstrated the characteristics of a particular point, he might ask you to investigate that possibility. There were times when he just told you where to look. And he didn’t always get it right himself, and from time to time revised his analysis which is true in my own case.

 

Among the current variations of the Enneagram work, only Helen et al insist, as a “principle of the school,” that the participant determines which point he or she owns. It is often a promise in the “narrative” tradition that you will discover your type after one weekend workshop. Frankly Helen’s promise seems to me to be a sales pitch. Certainly early protoanalysis often seemed purposefully vague—sometimes your type was switched after several months or, as in my case, years of work. 

 

Does it actually really make any difference if you determine your type accurately after your first workshop? It just seems better if you wait until you have some understanding of the Enneagram and some inner experience of self-observation. Then you might have a fighting chance of being honest with yourself and becoming free. I was typed as point 7, Ego Plan, after one year in SAT and thought of myself as a Plan well beyond the group’s dissolution. More than 19 years later, Claudio re-typed me a 9. Although I’ve always appreciated the Enneagram’s power as a tool for self-observation, when I was typed correctly, it was like focusing a laser. 

 

 

Some really far flung theories 

 

I was sitting in the classroom when Bob Ochs, a well respected Jesuit, said that the Enneagram probably originated in the esoteric school that trained Jesus. This assertion is as unsupported as the claim that during Jesus’s lost years, the time between when he stood up and amazed the synagogue elder’s and his baptism by John, he was initiated and trained by an Indian guru. Yet not one person in the room challenged it, myself included. 

 

More recently in a pastoral letter warning Catholics about using the Enneagram as a tool for spiritual direction, the U.S. Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, state that "sin is indeed unhealthy behavior and can be combated by an improved understanding, but it is at its root a moral problem, so that repentance before God and one’s neighbor must be the fundamental response. Enneagram teaching thus obscures the Christian understanding of sin." They also cite numerological speculations of the Pythagoreans. Óscar also suggests this, possibly looking for some terms that he can copyright, or the ancient wisdom of the Chaldeans as possible origins of the Enneagram. Apparently Óscar loves arguments for authority as much as Catholics do.

[Or, any other movement/ideology that preceded towards more and more authority…. Which ultimately is a universal flaw in human nature that arises unless it’s consciously worked on to be avoided…. See current trends towards moving Covid from a medical epidemiological problem and using it as a tool to control populations into “wokeness” and obedience of authority… the same can be said of many of the “...isms” that are suffocating free speech and open mindedness in academia, schools and lately in censorship of ideas that mainstream media and the silicone social media find contrary to their preferred ideology

 

There is also speculation that the true origins of the esoteric teaching were the Jesuits or perhaps Russian Orthodox communities. Oh, what might have happened if the bishops had been fed that line? The Jesuits were in hot water anyway. (See my article "The Jesuit Transmission of the Enneagram.") 

 

What can you do with any of this material? What does it have to do with self-discovery? 

 

In my view, most of the speculation about the origins of the Enneagram falls into the ``best guess” category. It occurs to me that people who were raised in one of the religious traditions of the Book tend to seek a revealed Source as validation of their inner experience. I come from that tradition myself, and know how it feels. 

 

But let me suggest another route. After more than 30 years of meditation practice, I have come to rely on a system that is empirically based. A committed group of practitioners, over a long period of time, share their experience, write about it, compare with one another, and along the way develop a system, a methodology of self-inquiry that does liberate people from the conditions and painful vagaries of living, allowing us to experience a fuller life. It might be impossible for some, but for me, this is, as Claudio pointed out to me, “the rich vein.” This is where I try to focus my attention, and it also points me in the direction of being rigorous in my self-observation.

 

So, what are the signs and effects of this sloppy thinking? 

 

Most Americans would prefer to read a 600-word article in Psychology Today for their understanding of the Enneagram. Most people who attend an Enneagram workshop also seem to want to find out their type quickly. To me what seems to be lacking is an understanding of how to use the Enneagram and what practices support continuing self-exploration. 

 

I have a close friend who did a Masters in Spiritual Psychology at the University of Santa Monica. While there were many things he appreciated about the program, his exposure to the Enneagram had to be of the 600-word variety. I have no specifics about the training of the person who presented the system in Santa Monica, but this is what my friend said to me, “Yeah, it is a great system. I once knew what number I am, but I forgot.” 

 

This Enneagram teacher inoculated my friend against the power of the Enneagram. Of course not everyone will be attracted to the Enneagram and the self-exploration that it might offer. But this path is not available to my friend now—it is very difficult to get around the part of the mind that tells you: “you don’t need to look there, you already understand that.” Throwing up that barrier has to be credited to the teacher’s account. 

 

Of the more than 150 books about the Enneagram that have appeared since 1980, most seem to be written to support the authors’ teaching credentials. The books also serve as promotional materials for their workshops and, at best, study guides. Most are not rigorous psychological studies, but rather present materials on prototyping with the practitioner’s particular spin. (I find Janet Levine’s approach rather interesting, and the books of Sandra Maitri are faithful to the work of the original SAT groups. There are of course others too that I am unaware of.)

 

Claudio once said that the power of the Enneagram is such that it remains compelling as a system even if misused. I seem to have survived mistyping. I also have no real objection to stealing material—this is the real world. But it does become problematic if and when the materials are used incorrectly.

 

Helen Palmer said, “Our research has found that there are far more 8's than Naranjo.”5 Claudio did speculate there were fewer 8’s among people who did the “Work” than in the general population. On the other hand Helen’s statement might just indicate that the narrative tradition has typed more people as 8’s, and they were mistyped. Some people from the narrative tradition type George W. Bush as an 8 on the evidence that he took us to war—Bush would be a “counter phobic 6” in Naranjo’s system. Ronald Regan was a nine because he liked his afternoon nap—Claudio typed Regan a 3. 

 

Another friend who has studied the Enneagram insists that he is a “Palmer-Riso” 8. He would be, however, a classic 9 if Claudio typed him. Though not easily agitated, there was an edge in his voice when he said: “I’m no ass kisser.” Through most of his remarkable career, he has been of service to others as a peace-maker who resolves very difficult conflicts with grace and ease. Yet, because he finds Sloth so un-masculine and un-American, he undervalues the roles in which he excels, and misses the chance of being honest with himself. In my view, this is an example of Enneagram typing becoming Ego massage oil. Inept hands have stripped away the power of the Enneagram.

 

Esoteric schools don’t have secrets because their knowledge bestows power that they don’t want to share. The secrets hide themselves. They do not manifest their power until they get inside a person and change their being. I think that the closest analogy to the new Enneagram system might be the Tibetan idea of torma, a teaching that remains hidden until it is ripe. (Buddhists had to devise a way of authenticating their teaching innovations and developments in the Mahayana and Vajrayana long after the Buddha’s death.) 

 

Most people who proclaim the Naqshbandi source of the Enneagram usually haven’t got the slightest idea who or what the Naqshbandi’s history or their spiritual traditions are. Or at best they only possess hearsay knowledge. Enneagram practitioners didn’t go off to get a Phd in Islamic studies—they got an MSW so that they could take their psychological wares to the marketplace. 

 

Mr. Patterson, you might as well locate the Source in King Tut’s tomb. When people go to a museum and see a 5,000-year-old sarcophagus embedded with gold and lapis, the secret remains safe from esoteric tampering. A mummy can’t stand up and speak unless the teacher casts a magic spell. 

 

I have not answered my own questions concerning the value and use of the “new” Enneagram tradition. There is no answer. But I have shown that most speculation about the origins of the Enneagram only supports a “best guess.”

 

Donovan Bess was at 60+ SAT’s oldest member. He had been a reporter and editor at the San Francisco Chronicle for most of his career. He was curious, engaging, interested in others, as well as being a seasoned self-observer. I liked him enormously. He died in Luxor when he was 81. After a day that included riding a camel and exploring the temples, he went back to the hotel with his longtime companion and died. She reported that he simply smiled and stopped breathing. 

 

I am not seeking to prove that the Enneagram has roots in the cults of Egyptian gods or demonstrate its authority as a sure predictor of behavior, but I have felt its power in my own life. If I were looking for evidence that the Enneagram is a powerful tool in the discipline of self-exploration, Donovan pointed a clear direction in the way he lived his life right up to last hours and minutes. 

 

 

Notes: 

 

1 “The Enneagram: A Developmental Study.” First published in Religion Today: A Journal of Contemporary Religions (London) V (3), October 1986-January 1987, pp.1-5. 

2 “The Enneagram Wars” by Subhuti, published in Osho News, OCTOBER 21, 2017

3 In my research I discovered speculation that Ichazo renamed the Enneagram “Enneagon” for copyright purposes. 

4 “Letter to the Transpersonal Community” by Oscar Ichazo. 

5 Personal notes. 

Bibliography

© Kenneth Ireland, 2007

In memory of Tom Marshall, S.J

 Monday, March 22, 2010

This morning, after his funeral mass at the Jesuit Sacred Heart Center in Los Gatos, we chanted The Heart Sutra as well as the Kanon Gyo at the graveside of Tom Marshall, S.J., lay brother of the Society of Jesus, an ordained Zen priest in both the Soto and Rinzai lineages, and a wonderful friend. This is the dedication I wrote for the occasion:

God that hews mountain and continent,

Earth, all, out; who, with trickling increment,

Veins violets and tall trees makes more and more,

Listen: We humbly place our feet on the Path of liberation.

May your path continue, dear Tom.

We, the many people whose lives you touched,

Send you on your way with our gratitude.

We remember your many gifts to us,

The books you gave us to train our minds,

Your ready compassion and your sweet smile.

Denis Genpo, Les Keye and your meditation companions salute you.

Your Jesuit brothers honor and bless you.

May your teachers, Shakyamuni, Maha-Kasyapa, Hakuin Ekaku, and Taizan

Maezumi welcome you.

May the Jesuit blessed and saints, Alphonsus, Peter Faber, Xavier, and Father

Ignatius open their wide embrace.

We dedicate any merit from your meditation and chanting

To relieve suffering in all of life and to clear your way, dear Tom.

You are among the bodhisattvas and other great beings,

Wide-eyed in the Cosmos, totally alive, right now.

Earth hears no hurdle,

The door to deep meditation opens yet again.

The teaching goes on without end.

Yes. Just look at It All!

All Buddhas throughout space and time, all bodhisattvas, saints and great beings,

the Mahaprajnaparamita.

Many thanks to GM Hopkins, S.J. for allowing me, by his silence, to use portions of his poem, “In Honour of Saint Alphonsus Rodriguez.” The last line is from Tom.

In Honour Of St. Alphonsus Rodriguez

Laybrother of the Society of Jesus

by Gerard Manley Hopkins

Honour is flashed off exploit, so we say;

And those strokes once that gashed flesh or galled shield

Should tongue that time now, trumpet now that field,

And, on the fighter, forge his glorious day.

On Christ they do and on the martyr may;

But be the war within, the brand we wield

Unseen, the heroic breast not outward-steeled,

Earth hears no hurtle then from fiercest fray.

Yet God (that hews mountain and continent,

Earth, all, out; who, with trickling increment,

Veins violets and tall trees makes more and more)

Could crowd career with conquest while there went

Those years and years by of world without event

That in Majorca Alfonso watched the door.


I dedicate this to my friend Tom Marshall, S.J., who died on March 11, 2010.
A lay brother of the Society of Jesus,
a Zen priest in both the Soto and Rinzai lineages,
and my hero.

May he rest in peace.

We will miss you. We love you.