In order to understand the fourth way approach to the study of consciousness, it is most useful to compare it to western ideas. William James, the 19th century American philosopher, has been one of the most influential figures in the modern study of consciousness and mind. Western psychologists routinely quote James’speculations about consciousness. However, from the fourth way perspective, there are fundamental mistakes evident in James’presentations, which ideas became widespread in contemporary studies of consciousness.

   A first issue concerns James’tendency to equate consciousness, in a general way, with the stream of different psychological processes within the mind:

"By states of consciousness are meant such things as sensations, desires, emotions, cognitions, reasonings, decisions, volitions, and the like. (p.15) The first and foremost concrete fact which every one will affirm to belong to his inner experience is the fact that consciousness of some sort goes on. ... we must simply say that thought goes on. (p. 167) ... let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life" (p. 173)  (1972/1892,)

Consciousness is roughly equated with the flow of sensations, desires, emotions, cognitions, “and the like,”or with the “stream of thought,”or the “stream of subjective life.”  James equates consciousness with the psychological functions–such as thinking, feeling and sensing.

   A second assumption, that James makes, concerns the localization of consciousness, which he assumes is produced in the brain. In particular, James comments: “The immediate condition of a state of consciousness is an activity of some sort in the cerebral hemispheres.”  (p.18) A third argument found in James and modern western psychology, is that consciousness is not anything substantive beyond the mind’s psychological and neurological processes. Natsoulas (1978), in a more modern review of the consciousness literature, explains:

   "James considered consciousness the most mysterious thing in the world. But he was sure it was no actual thing, that it was a non-entity. Those psychologists who would cling to a substantive consciousness were said to be clinging “to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the disappearing ‘soul’upon the air of philosophy.”(p.906)

The idea of a substantive consciousness is linked to the idea of a soul, an immaterial something connected to the material body/brain. Modern psychology and science has dismissed the idea of humans having a soul or a spiritual nature, and along with this, the idea of a substantive consciousness.

   Of course, psychologists and scientists have not proven that consciousness is non-substantive. In fact, they have not even established empirically that the brain’s material processes produce consciousness. Consequently, it is important to realize that consciousness remains a profound enigma within modern psychology–that it is, as William James said, “the most mysterious thing in the world.” Nevertheless, most psychologists ignore the many tricky issues involved in the study of consciousness and equate it simply with thinking and other mental processes in the brain.

   The fourth way teaching suggests that these ideas from western psychology are seriously misguided. In 1922, Ouspensky commented upon the work of William James and emphasized an important distinction between “psychic functions”and “consciousness,”and the importance of considering “consciousness”as being substantive:

"In conversational language and in every-day psychology, even in psychology purporting to be scientific, the word consciousness is often used as a term for the designation of a complex of all psychic functions in general, or for their separate manifestations. ... to the best of my recollection Prof. William James defined thought as “a moment of consciousness.”
   From my standpoint ... it is necessary to regard consciousness as distinct from the commonly understood psychic functions: thought, feeling and sensation. Over and above all this, consciousness has several exactly definable forms or phases, in each one of which thoughts, feelings and sensations can function, giving in each different results. Thus consciousness ... is a background upon which thoughts, feelings and sensations reveal themselves. This background can be more or less bright. But as thoughts, feelings and sensations have their own separate life, and can be regarded independently of this background, so can it be regarded and studied independently of them. ... It is important only to establish the fact that thoughts, feelings and sensations, i.e., psychic functions, are not consciousness." (1968, pp. xiii-xiv)

If the fourth way teaching is correct, the confusion of consciousness with the psychic functions is a profound error in western psychology, produced by the manner in which the mind is being used to investigate consciousness. The mind identifies consciousness with the contents and activities of the mind, instead of realizing that it is something else deeper.

    What could this something else be?  Consciousness is described as a “background” to the psychic functions, and thus might be related to ideas about space, within which the psychological process can be experienced.  Ouspensky also identifies another important aspect of a substantive consciousness, relating it to light:

"(Psychic) functions can be compared to machines working in varying degrees of light. These machines are such that they are able to work better with light than in darkness; every moment there is more light the machines work better. Consciousness is light and machines are functions.  (p. 55) ...  Energy of consciousness is not recognized by psychology and by scientific schools. ... Consciousness is light, light is the result of a certain energy; if there is no energy there is no light." (1957, p. 68)

Consciousness is associated with substantive light energies which illuminate the activities of the centers (or minds).  Just as a human can see things in the outer world when there is exterior light illuminating them, so also, there is an inner light source illuminating the inner world.  This inner light of consciousness allows for awareness of the stream of thoughts, feelings, sensations, desires, and so on, which occur within the inner world.

   Nicoll (1975), a student of Ouspensky’s, elaborates upon this idea that consciousness is light, and relates it to the practices of self-study.  The processes of awakening involve increases in the inner light of consciousness, which illuminates the psychological processes:

"... consciousness is compared in this system with light. Our inner life is said to be darkness and this is what is meant in the Gospels by the words: ‘People who live in darkness.’  The idea of Self-Observation is to let a ray of light into this darkness. ... Whereas the ray of a candle illuminates feebly the surroundings, the light of an arc-lamp lights up what were mere shadows before and makes us see everything in an entirely different relation ... (as) sometimes occurs to us in times of trouble and distress when suddenly everything becomes transformed and we see things in an entirely different light.  When we are fixed in our negative states, when we are full of self-pity and only conscious of injured self-love, etc., we see everything very darkly. ... But when we have a moment of awakening and are lifted out of that state by the action of the Work, all our thoughts and emotions in that state now seem to be trivial. We cannot understand why we said this thing or thought that thing. This is a moment of illumination, of increased light, and so increased consciousness, in the sense that we are ‘knowing together’ far more than we do in our contracted state.  Everything falls into its right proportion, as it were, in the light of this increased consciousness. ...  Quite simply, we rise above ourselves for a moment and see things in a new light."  (p. 204)

The light of consciousness illuminates the inner world and allows awareness of ourselves to varying degrees.  Illumination, enlightenment and insight are all terms associated with increases in the light of consciousness.  Although humans may normally have very little of this substance, consciousness is substantive.  We do not appreciate the true nature of consciousness because we are not properly conscious.  In fact, there are degrees of consciousness and varied states of consciousness.  The states are discrete or discontinuous levels of realization and awareness which come with the evolution of an individual’s being.

   According to the fourth way, an individual is capable of experiencing or achieving four states of consciousness.  Unfortunately, humans’ lives are primarily passed in the two levels of sleep and waking sleep.  The so-called normal state is one of semi-sleep, which Gurdjieff refers to as relative consciousness or the waking sleep state.  However, in this state, people do not realize how they are not self conscious, and what this would possibly mean.  The study of psychology must involve the study of consciousness and efforts to develop self-consciousness, the state natural to the individual who is awake, instinctually sensing reality and experiencing higher emotions.

     Typically, we assume that humans are properly conscious of themselves during waking periods.  Gurdjieff teaches that this is not so, and that instead, people’s waking periods are governed by the mechanical, unnecessary wrong work of the centers, the formation of a “false personality” and the absence of true self-consciousness. Gurdjieff depicts this state:

 “... the first state of consciousness ... is sleep.  This is an entirely subjective state of consciousness. ...  Then a man wakes up.  At first glance this is a quite different state of consciousness.  He can move, he can talk with other people, he can make calculations ahead, he can see danger and avoid it, and so on. ... But if we go a little more deeply into things, if we take a look into his inner world, into his thoughts, into the causes of his actions, we shall see that he is in almost the same state as when he is asleep. ...   he does not remember himself.  He is a machine, everything with him happens.  He cannot stop the flow of his thoughts, he cannot control his imagination, his emotions, his attention.  He lives in a subjective world of ‘I love,’ ‘I do not love,’ ‘I like,’ ‘I do not like,’ ‘I want,’ ‘I do not want,’ that is, ... of what he thinks he wants, of what he thinks he does not want.  He does not see the real world.  The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination.  He lives in sleep.  He is asleep.  What is called ‘clear consciousness’ is sleep and a far more dangerous sleep than sleep at night in bed.” (1949, pp. 142-43)

In this view, one can think, feel, act, speak and work, without being conscious of it.  In fact, we are always lost within the stream of thoughts, imagination, negative emotions and self-love.  In so-called normal waking consciousness,  we do not remember ourselves and are not properly self- conscious.

    The study of psychology, according to the fourth way, begins with the study of consciousness and the effort to awaken from the semi-conscious waking sleep state.  Ouspensky states that our principle error or illusion is to think that we are already properly conscious:

"... what is called in modern psychology “the subconscious” or “the subconscious mind” ...  are simply wrong expressions, wrong terms, which mean nothing and do not refer to any real facts. There is nothing permanently subconscious in us because there is nothing permanently conscious; and there is no “subconscious mind” for the very simple reason that there is no “conscious mind.” "  (1950, pp. 32-3)

From the fourth way perspective, modern psychological concepts of the subconscious or unconscious mind are not based in reality.  If there is no permanent conscious presence and I in the individual, then there is no true consciousness. The familiar concept of “the unconscious” reflects the assumption that people are normally conscious.  Gurdjieff stands the entire framework of modern thought on its head by asserting that there is no proper consciousness, but that there could be.   Ouspensky  (1950) notes:

"... the first obstacle in the way of the development of self-consciousness in man, is his conviction that he already possesses self-consciousness, or at any rate, that he can have it at any time he likes. It is very difficult to persuade a man that he is not conscious and cannot be conscious at will."    (p.  36)

People ordinarily think that we have a conscious mind and that we can be self conscious at will.  These are fundamental illusions.   Attaining self-consciousness is not simply a matter of reflecting on yourself with the mind or thinking about who you are. Instead, it requires a dissolution of the predominant ego and false personality complex, and an awakening within the essence, which forms the possible basis for real I.

    The four states of consciousness are not simply on a continuum with each other.  Instead, the transition from one state to another involves a quantum leap, a discontinuity in the quality and quantity of consciousness.  Each state is marked by the appearance of new faculties and capacities, and allows for a greater degree of the realization of the truth of self and the nature of reality. Just as the dream state may be governed by subjective dreams, fears and imaginations, which disappear upon waking, so also, a human can awaken again from the normal waking sleep state and experience moments of true self-consciousness.  In the state of self-consciousness, the stream of thoughts, negative emotions and semi-conscious actions that dominate the waking sleep state are de-automatized and dissipated,  allowing for a profoundly deeper and more real experience of  “I.”  Rather than being dominated by “it,” one’s presence can consist of a coherent three-fold awareness– of head, heart and hands–and a deep experience that “I AM.”

"The four states of presence possible for man in his life are individual states, however vast and formless they may be. This last state is the supreme Realization (the Buddhist paranirvana, the cosmic mind of Zen, the Yahweh in the Kabbalah, the unconditioned Absolute of metaphysics–beyond all form and all individuality).  It is “That” which cannot be named, about which nothing can be said, about which nothing can be known, which can only be spoken about in terms of what it is not, and which is also referred to by such terms as “annihilation,” “extinction,” “fullness of the Void,” “formlessness.” ... This is the ultimate end, where a man dissolves in the supreme Realization."  (p.66)

back to table of contents
for Psychological Illusions