Gurdjieff Bennett and the Fourth Way (2)

representation, definitely implies some kind of ‗mandate of succession‘.
It is
fundamental to Bennett's position as it developed after 1949 that he believed that
Gurdjieff had placed upon him a particular and individual obligation to further the
fulfilment of his work. 91
Deep continuity.
In contrast on the one hand to the ‗orthodox lineal descendants‘, and on the other to
the ‗non-lineal pretenders‘, Bennett's position can be characterized as a ‗deep
continuity claim‘: he had specific lineal connection to Gurdjieff and his work and had
attained some degree of connection to the underlying authority (―esoteric centre‖).
The assertion of such a claim would not impress the ‗orthodox lineal
descendants‘. 92 They can easily say that Bennett may have wished to support his own
authority claim by reference to his connection to Gurdjieff, and he may have believed
that he was genuinely fulfilling Gurdjieff's will, but that the basic evidence of his
relationship to the teaching suggests otherwise. How, then, is the ‗thesis‘ to be
reconciled with the ‗antithesis‘?
The argument that I will propound in response to this question can, for
convenience, be summarized in four sections:
(i)
With regard to the orthodoxy's criticism that Bennett's actual contact with
Gurdjieff was relatively sparse it can be argued that it is the quality rather than
the quantity of the contact which is important. Bennett's month with Gurdjieff in
1923 culminated with a profound inner experience which revealed to him the
sublime possibilities which the teaching held for him. When he returned to
Gurdjieff in August 1948 his considerable preparation and high level of
32