The Ray of Creation




A table detailing the relationships between the two major hierarchic systems (centers, ray of creation) which Gurdjieff introduced and the standard hierarchy of yogic chakras.

The chart also indicates correlations between these systems and various principle attributes, or names, of God, as expounded in hierarchic Sufi doctrine (Ibn a' 'Arabi.) These attributes of God share a close  identity in both character and hierarchic structure to that of yogic chakras. We thus have six different systems, all of which can be assigned to Gurdjieff's enneagram in an internally consistent manner without violating what we know of them, based on the available material.


1. The numeric system, characterized by the multiplications.

2.  The notes of the Western musical octave.

3. The yogic chakras.

4.  Gurdjieff's centers

5.  The ray of creation

6.  The six essential principles of inner work


 Readers should note that this system produces a general consistency of both concepts, language, and interaction, which one would expect of any cosmology which claims to be based on Gurdjieff's objective principles.


Readers may want to note that my original version of this chart positioned moving center at the note Fa and  intellectual center at the note La. Later research suggests that the opposite is true, because of the role assigned by the various characteristics by the chart.  The current version, revised in 2013, is consistent in some ways, but not in others. Technically speaking, in the strictest terms, the progression ought to be Fa, intellectual, Sol, moving, and La, emotional, but because the diagram is flexible, is always in movement, and because notes can exchange places with one another for various reasons too complex to go into here, it seems likely to suggest that any one of these notes can suggest any one of the centers under certain conditions. The movements freely use just such substitutions, in which one note morphs into another, taking on its position and role, suggesting that Gurdjieff also saw it this way.


 The question will have to remain open for now. In any event, I like this version of the chart better, for the time being; and aside from the question of where the centers fall, the assignments are accurate.