Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it. There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic,…
I disagree. Articles like this do have something interesting to contribute. They're for sure of historical interest, and to some subset of readers, perennial interest. Gurdjieff was a fascinating character who attracted an astonishing circle of followers. You've heard about the obscenity trial of Ulysses ? Jane Heap was the publisher who got tried for it [1]. A.R. Orage was T.S. Eliot's favorite editor. These people…
Yes, Gurdjieff's pupils were famous artists and intellectuals of their time. It is striking, reading his wikipedia page, how much of it is devoted to the account of who joined his circle, who travelled with him when he moved, who left his circle, etc. There is as much focus on Gurdjieff's pupils as on Gurdjieff himself.
Still, that makes him a guru with famous pupils. In fact, he is probably still remembered today because he had such famous pupils; certainly not because of his teachings or any kind of personal contribution to knowledge.
He clearly must have been a charismatic figure to gather all those people around him. Nobody becomes a cult leader by being boring and bland! But, charisma and imagination are gifts squandered if they are spent cooking up some ad-hoc "path to enlightenment" with the only purpose of seducing people into becoming your faithful followers. It is exploitative to use one's gift to inspire, only to steal your "students" time, to force them to believe your every word, follow you around and practice your silly little "system" in hopes of becoming "enlightened"- to promise everything when you have nothing.
I also know well the impact that meeting such a man can have: one becomes bound to them, perhaps for life. Having once basked at the glow of the Master, you can check out but you can never leave. Like human opiates, they offer brief pleasure and take everything from you in return, holding you captive with false promises and empty dreams. It is not they who are fascinating. It's the tendency of the human mind to fall down holes, forever.
No account of Gurdjieff's life is complete if it does not put the fact of what he really was, left right and centre. Especially not if it detracts from that fact with such exhuberant praise as the article above.