In Search of the Miraculous: Ouspensky and his Group

The Life and Times of PD Ouspensky (1878-1947)

Sourced from The Gurdjieff Legacy Foundation Archives

With an extended personal comment  by Lasha Darkmoon
on miraculous cures and the ancient doctrine of Eternal Recurrence 


Pyotr Demianovich Ouspensky was born in Moscow on March 5, 1878.1 His parents were part of Russia’s intelligentsia, the educated elite; his mother a painter with an interest in Russian and French literature; his father, a Survey Service officer, fond of music, painting and the idea of the Fourth Dimension. Working as a journalist for newspapers in Moscow and St. Petersburg, he also wrote and self-published a number of books. Believing there existed another reality “beyond the thin film of false reality” that was ordinary life, he searched for “a new or forgotten road”—what he called “the miraculous”—which would “allow a penetration into this unknown reality.”

He made two journeys to the East, the first in 1908, the second in 1914. He found esoteric schools but realized they were not of “the rational kind” for which he was searching. In April 1915 he met G. I. Gurdjieff, and the following year recruited a group in St. Petersburg and, with reluctance, joined it. His relationship with Gurdjieff was difficult; he left Gurdjieff first in Essentuki the summer of 1919 and then again in Constantinople in August 1921 when he immigrated to England. Finally, in January 1924, Ouspensky broke for good and started his own line of the teaching. In 1941, because of the Second World War, he left for New York where he again formed groups. Ouspensky returned to England in 1947 and held a series of talks in which he disassociated himself from what he had taught. He died on October 2, 1947.

As a child Ouspensky showed a precocious intelligence. At the age of three he began to read. When less than four years old, his father died. He, his sister and mother lived with her parents. Not long after, his grandfather, a painter of religious subjects, died. Later in life Ouspensky said, “I was under less imagination and I saw what life was like at a very early stage. I didn’t play with toys.” At six years of age Ouspensky was reading on an adult level.2 Two books made a strong impression on him—Lermontov’s A Hero for Our Time and Turgenev’s A Sportsman’s Notebook. Lermontov’s book is noteworthy since the ideas it expresses—the plasticity of time and questions of predestination, fate and recurrence—are those that would occupy Ouspensky throughout his life.

As a young boy Ouspensky disliked school, finding the work dull. At sixteen he discovered Nietzsche, whose idea of eternal recurrence would remain a lifelong interest. He left school the same year. In 1905, at the age of seventeen, his mother died. That year he wrote his only novel (not published until 1915), The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin. Theosophical literature became an interest and he attended meetings of the Russian Theosophical Society. In 1908 Ouspensky and his friend Sherbakov planned a journey to the East in search of an authentic esoteric school; however, shortly before their departure Sherbakov died. Ouspensky travelled alone to Constantinople, Smyrna, Greece, and Egypt without finding a school. Returning to Russia in early 1909, Ouspensky moved to St. Petersburg where he experimented with altering consciousness using hashish and nitrous oxide, but soon realized drugs were a dead end.

He began to write Tertium Organum: The Third Canon of Thought, a Key to the Enigmas of the World, which he self-published in 1912. The book was intended to supplement Aristotle’s Organon and Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum. It brought Ouspensky attention and fame. Still bent on finding an esoteric school, in the winter of 1913 Ouspensky traveled to Ceylon and India. He made contact with a number of schools, but they were, he said, “either of a frankly religious nature, or of a half-religious character, but definitely devotional in tone.”3 These did not interest him. Other schools promised a great deal but demanded, from the beginning, a complete surrender. “It seemed to me,” he said, “there ought to be schools of a more rational kind and that a man had the right, up to a certain point, to know where he was going.”

In November 1914, Ouspensky noticed an ad in a Russian newspaper for a ballet, The Struggle of the Magicians. In April 1915, after giving a lecture in Moscow on “In Search of the Miraculous,” Ouspensky was approached by Vladimir Pohl, a composer, and Sergei Dmitrievich Mercourov, a sculptor, who encouraged him to meet the man who was leading a group studying occult investigations and experiments. Ouspensky was not interested. Mercourov persisted and finally a meeting between Ouspensky and George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff was arranged.


Ouspensky at once recognized the answers Gurdjieff gave to his questions, his understanding of life, were of a much different and deeper quality than anything he had ever encountered. Ouspensky was particularly impressed with Gurdjieff’s command of psychology, an area that he felt was his specialty. “I saw without hesitation,” he said, “that in the domain which I knew better than any other and in which I was really able to distinguish the old from the new, the known from the unknown, Gurdjieff knew more than all European science taken as a whole.” He met with Gurdjieff every day for a week before he was obligated to return to St. Petersburg.

That autumn Gurdjieff visited Ouspensky in St. Petersburg and enlisted Ouspensky’s help in forming a group. Ouspensky agreed but didn’t want to be a member of a group. Gurdjieff began to treat Ouspensky indifferently, and so he reluctantly agreed to become a student. Gurdjieff stated that Ouspensky was responsible for those taken into the group. This time is referred to by Ouspensky as “the St. Petersburg Conditions.”4 Formal studies under Gurdjieff began in February 1916.5

Besides Ouspensky, original members of the group included Dr. Leonid Stjoernval, Andrei Zaharoff, Anthony Charkovsky, Nicholas R–, and Anna Ilinishna Butkovsky. Meetings were held almost every evening. That August the group met in a country home in Finland. Without telling Gurdjieff, Ouspensky had been doing short intensive fasts, mental and breathing exercises. The shock to his organism put him in a state of unusual tension. At a meeting, Gurdjieff spoke to him telepathically and Ouspensky answered his questions in front of other students. Gurdjieff told Ouspensky there were certain conditions he must accept or leave the Work. Later Gurdjieff said something to Ouspensky telepathically that upset him. Ouspensky experienced that what he took as firm in himself was in fact not so. It was another “I”. Ouspensky’s words speak clearly of the experience: “I had found something else. I knew that he [Gurdjieff] would not believe me and that he would laugh at me if I showed him this other thing.”6

In February 1917 Thomas and Olga de Hartmann joined the group and perhaps Sophia Grigorievna Savitsky who became known as “Mme Ouspensky,” though it is not clear if they ever married. That same month civil disorder broke out in Russia and Gurdjieff left for the Caucasus.7 In mid-July 1917 Ouspensky and other students rejoined Gurdjieff in Essentuki. Working intensively, Gurdjieff laid out the entire teaching, revealing the links, connections, and direction of the teaching along with the origin of the ideas. The work there lasted for six weeks. Some event happened that prompted Gurdjieff to announce he was disbanding the group and ending all work. The announcement’s apparent irrationality shocked Ouspensky. He reacted to Gurdjieff’s decision by internally disagreeing with him, separating Gurdjieff the man from the ideas of the Work.8 This marked the beginning of many such reactions, identifications and separations. Though he would join Gurdjieff again in Essentuki, he would continue on to Constantinople after Essentuki was liberated in January of 1919.

In the spring of 1920 Mrs. Winifred Beaumont offered Ouspensky a drawing room in Constantinople in which to hold lectures. There Ouspensky met twenty-three-year-old J. G. Bennett, the much older Mrs. Beaumont’s young lover. Ouspensky’s lectures created interest and he began forming a group of pupils.

JG BENNETT (1897-1974)

LD : Both my parents were disciples of JG Bennett at Coombe Springs, Surrey, where my father was encouraged to write poetry by Bennett and to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church as a “symbolic act”.  Bennett (pictured), a polymath of staggering erudition fluent in 17 languages, was the author of a stupendous work in four volumes called The Dramatic Universe — a book in my father’s library which I had found totally incomprehensible when I first tried to read it in my late teens.

Though I was born four years after Bennett’s death, I nevertheless grew up in an atmosphere of Eastern spirituality, with much talk about Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and the Indonesian religious discipline known as Subud, to which many members of Bennett’s circle later belonged. My parents were Subud members and benefited enormously from the latihan, the spiritual exercise around which the entire movement is based. My mother, suffering from chronic arthritis at the time, was cured in a single instant during the latihan ceremony.

It happened like this.

My mother’s back pain, acutely felt at all times and kept in control only with strong painkillers, tore out of her body like an evil bird and entered the body of another person in the latihan hall. There were roughly a hundred people in the hall, all wailing and chanting and gyrating crazily as one does during the 30-minute latihan ceremony, and the pain that had been lodged in my mother’s back had transferred itself into the body of another individual. This was regarded as normal. It was meant to happen.

The man into whose body the pain went was a “helper”, a spiritually advanced devotee specially trained to receive such pain and expel it later. He came up to my mother after the latihan and said, “It’s you who had the pain, am I right?” My mother nodded mutely. “Well, your pain has come into me,” the man said with a gentle smile, “and I must now do a cleansing and get rid of the little demon.” He withdrew into a separate room. Five minutes later he returned. “It’s gone,” he told my mother. “Back into the void from whence it came.”  

This miraculous cure of my own mother from an incurable disease made an indelible impression on my young mind. Hitherto an incurable skeptic, I suddenly became a firm believer in the miraculous.

I was to receive a copy of Ouspensky’s magnum opus In Search of the Miraculous (see below) as a gift on my thirteenth birthday from my father, a book which in turn had been given to him by the erudite Bennett.  This book, too, was completely above my head, I confess, but far easier than Bennett’s book which had been full of abstruse mathetmatical equations. It was here in this book that I first made acquaintance with the uncanny “Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence” which was to exercise such a fascination on both Ouspensky and Nietzsche.

Let Wikipedia explain:

 “ETERNAL RETURN (also known as “eternal recurrence”) is a concept that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur, in a self-similar form an infinite number of times across infinite time or space. The concept is found in Indian philosophy and in ancient Egypt and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics.

With the decline of antiquity and the spread of Christianity, the concept fell into disuse in the Western world, with the exception of Friedrich Nietzsche, who connected the thought to many of his other concepts, including amor fati.  In addition, the philosophical concept of eternal recurrence was addressed by Arthur Schopenhauer. It is a purely physical concept, involving no supernatural reincarnation, but the return of beings in the same bodies. Time is viewed as being not linear but cyclical.”  

In other words, according to the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence—derived from intuitive knowledge or sruti—our lives are like recorded movies on a disc which will be played again and again, with no end in sight; and everything we have done will be done again without the slightest variation, ad infinitum. You will be born into the same family, go to the same school, make the same friends, fall in love with the same lovers, experience the same triumphs and disasters, and die the same death. And each time you do this, you will think it is the first time, with no recollection that you have done this before in an infinite number of identical lives.

According to this alarming theory, this is not the first time you are reading this article. These words you are reading now, you have read them before in countless incarnations. And you are doomed to go on reading them in countless identical lives  yet to come.

This would be the Ultimate Torture if you knew for sure that the thing you are about to do is the thing you have already done, a trillion zillion times, in an infinite series of identical repetitions. There is no free will here. This is clockwork repetition. The precious moment in the rose garden, with the moonlight on your lover’s face … the fleeting kiss long forgotten … the sigh, the whisper, the murmured words … they will all come back again and be re-enacted in the Eternal Return.


I have tried to capture all this in a very short poem I wrote long ago.

—  LD

On July 7, 1920, Gurdjieff and his followers arrived in Constantinople. Ouspensky decided to work again with Gurdjieff and turned over his pupils to Gurdjieff. At this time Ouspensky gave lectures at Gurdjieff’s Institute in Constantinople. In the spring of 1921 Ouspensky noticed that Gurdjieff seemed to be going out of his way to provoke quarrels and misunderstandings.

Ouspensky was alarmed by Gurdjieff’s behavior and began to think of leaving. His opportunity came in May 1921 when Ouspensky received a telegram from Lady Rothermere. Impressed with Tertium Organum, she offered to pay all his expenses if he would come to London. During this time Ouspensky told Gurdjieff of his idea to write a book giving Gurdjieff’s St. Petersburg lectures with his own commentaries. Gurdjieff agreed to the idea and authorized the publication. In August Gurdjieff saw that conditions were not right in Constantinople, and he left the city with his entourage. Among those were Mme Ouspensky and her family. She had chosen Gurdjieff over Ouspensky as her teacher. During the same month Ouspensky departed Constantinople for London.

Ouspensky was well received in London and was given a meeting place in Lady Rothermere’s studio. A. R. Orage, a former Theosophist whom Ouspensky had previously met in London on his return from India, also helped to recruit pupils for Ouspensky’s group and introduced him to members of his psychosynthesis group.

In February and March of 1922 Gurdjieff traveled to London. His talks won the allegiance of most of Ouspensky’s pupils and patrons, who decided on their own to help Gurdjieff open an institute in London at Hampstead. However, Gurdjieff was refused permanent entry to England. In 1923 Ouspensky often visited the Prieuré in Fontainebleau, but declined Gurdjieff’s invitation to live there. In January 1924 Ouspensky gathered ten of his senior pupils and backers and announced that he had broken off all relations with Gurdjieff and in the future would be operating independently. He told them that they had a choice, to stay and work with him or go and work with Gurdjieff. But if they chose to stay then they must not in any way communicate with Gurdjieff or his students and not mention his name. Though Ouspensky imposed this rule on his pupils he did not hold to it himself, and for at least seven years he would occasionally see Gurdjieff. Later, after Gurdjieff closed the Institute, he sent Mme Ouspensky to her husband in England. Though the Ouspenskys’ personal relationship remained platonic, they did share the responsibility of teaching in both England and America.9

By 1935 Ouspensky had attracted upwards of one thousand people to the teaching. Weekly meetings were held with the material to be addressed first presented by an older student, usually Lord John Pentland, a Cambridge graduate and journalist, and J. G. Bennett, and then Ouspensky followed answering questions and elaborating. With funds from wealthy students, the Ouspenskys purchased Lyne Place at Virginia Water, located twenty-three miles from London. C. S. Nott visited there. Ouspensky told Nott that he thought Gurdjieff lost contact with the Source after Essentuki. He claimed that Gurdjieff’s mind had never recovered from the car accident in 1924. Nott disagreed, saying, “For me Gurdjieff represents objective sanity…. He lives the Teaching, while we talk about it.”10

By 1938 Ouspensky had delegated much of the routine teaching to others. In April 1938 he formed the Historico-Psychological Society. Ouspensky was the “Official Lecturer.” On the Society’s committee were Ouspensky and Mme Ouspensky, Lord John Pentland, Dr. Kenneth Walker, and Dr. Francis Roles. Ouspensky began drafting rules to be adhered to by the Society members. He thought that these prohibitive rules would promote consciousness: pupils were never to mention Gurdjieff, never address each other by their Christian names, never speak together around strangers, never speak to anyone who had left the groups, etc.

In January 1941, both Ouspenskys left England for America to avoid the war, with Ouspensky leaving instructions for the Work to continue as long as possible at Lyne Place. At this time Orage had been dead for seven years, yet his group was still meeting in New York. C. S. Nott arranged for Ouspensky to speak to Orage’s group. The group was not impressed with Ouspensky’s presentation, considering him overly intellectual, pretentious, and lacking in emotional authority. His energies at this time were depleted by age, drink and the climate of the East Coast, and most importantly he had lost inner conviction.11

In late 1942 Franklin Farms, an estate in Mendham, New Jersey, was purchased for Ouspensky to use as a center for his activities.12 Mme Ouspensky, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, spent much of her time in bed but continued to direct Work activities. Many pupils considered her the senior teacher. Ouspensky spent little time at Mendham preferring to stay in New York. Ouspensky’s health was deteriorating and he was drinking heavily, saying that drinking was the only thing that relieved his boredom.13

In 1945, Marie Seton, Ouspensky’s secretary, expressed concern about his drinking and explosive temper.14 Ouspensky confided to her that he felt contempt for his students and believed that neither they nor he had gained anything from the System. He said that he took over the System before he was ready, but that he was too accustomed to the comfort and luxury that teaching afforded him and he could not stop. She urged him to give up his lectures until he had found his way again, but he refused. Because of this incident she left the Work.15 Ouspensky began to shun contact with others.16 He continued to see a small circle of his intimates, which included Lord Pentland and Rodney Collin-Smith. His drinking increased and he became ill with kidney disease but refused to seek treatment.17

  1. S. Nott wrote, “All that Ouspensky had of value, he got from Gurdjieff, and that only with his mind. He had a perfunctory fling at the movements; and even confessed to being lazy. Gurdjieff’s main quarrel with him was that he, Ouspensky, thought he knew better, and was apt to kick over the traces.”18 Moreover, “Ouspensky had set out, in the Theosophical tradition in old St. Petersburg, in a role in which he saw himself as a successful religious teacher though he may not have been conscious of this. He was, as I have said, a professional philosopher.”19 While Nott felt Ouspensky to be warm and sympathetic, he said his weakness was his emotional center.20

Frank Pinder felt that Ouspensky knew the theory of the work, perhaps better than anyone, but he did not understand.21 Denis Saurat believed that Ouspensky couldn’t submit to the pressure Gurdjieff brought to bear on him so as to break down his vanity.22

Speaking of Ouspensky, Marie Seton said, “Here was a man who was at heart honest; a man who was not by any means devoid of compassion for people. But adulation and comfort and the dearth of friends and the terror of a period of war had sapped his will to keep theory and practice united.”23

Finally, his health in decline, Ouspensky decided to leave America and he sailed for England on January 18, 1947. Five weeks later, on February 24, he held the first of six meetings at Colet Gardens. Ouspensky baffled many of his students by denying that he had ever taught a System, saying he had never given a teaching and that he had no teaching to give. Those in attendance tried to understand; some believed this was a teaching device. No one considered that what he said was what he believed.24

In his last days, Ouspensky was driven by his student Rodney Collin-Smith for exhausting car rides to impress familiar locations on his memory. Ouspensky would also push his body, making himself stay up long hours. On October 2, 1947, Ouspensky died at Lyne Place in the arms of Rodney Collin-Smith. He is buried in the courtyard of Lyne Church.

51lYBJrYUBL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_Ouspensky will be chiefly remembered as the author of In Search of the Miraculous, published posthumously in 1949 and later in several foreign languages under the title Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. This work is by far the most lucid account available of the Russian period of Gurdjieff’s teaching, and it has been a principal cause of the growing influence of Gurdjieff’s ideas.25 His other books include: The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution, A New Model of the Universe, Tertium Organum, The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin, and The Symbolism of the Tarot. A posthumous record of his talks and answers to questions were published with the titles The Fourth Way, A Record of Meetings, A Further Record, and Conscience.

His life has been the subject of many books as well, including The Strange Life of P. D. Ouspensky by Colin Wilson; Don’t Forget: P. D. Ouspensky’s Life of Self-remembering by Bob Hunter and Andrew Phillip Smith; P. D. Ouspensky: Pioneer of the Fourth Way by Bob Hunter; and Ouspensky: The Unsung Genius by J. H. Reyner. His relationship with Gurdjieff is examined in Struggle of the Magicians: Exploring the Teacher-Student Relationship by William Patrick Patterson.

Ouspensky gave thousands of lectures over many years, and has been quoted as saying:

If we begin to study ourselves we first of all come up against one word which we use more than any other and that is the word ‘I’. We say ‘I am doing’, ‘I am sitting’, ‘I feel’, ‘I like’, ‘I dislike’, and so on. This is our chief illusion, for the principal mistake we make about ourselves is that we consider ourselves one; we always speak about ourselves as ‘I’ and we suppose that we refer to the same thing all the time when in reality we are divided into hundreds and hundreds of different ‘I’s…. These ‘I’s change all the time; one suppresses another, one replaces another, and all this struggle makes up our inner life.”26

Particularly interested in negative emotions and the lack of reason for them, he said, “There is absolutely not a single unavoidable reason why somebody else’s action or some circumstance should produce a negative emotion in me. It is only my weakness. No negative emotion can be produced by external causes if we do not want it.”27

And regarding war, “Wars do not begin by themselves, neither do ‘peoples’ begin them, however much they are accused of it. It is just those men with their good intentions who are the obstacle to peace. But is it possible to expect that they will ever understand this? Has anybody ever understood his own worthlessness?”28

Speaking of man as a machine, he said, “Man is a machine, but a very peculiar machine. He is a machine which, in right circumstances, and with right treatment, can know that he is a machine, and, having fully realized this, he may find the ways to cease to be a machine.”29

On the subject of lying, Ouspensky said, “Lying fills all our life. People pretend that they know all sorts of things: about God, about the future life, about the universe, about the origin of man, about evolution, about everything; but in reality they do not know anything, even about themselves. And every time they speak about something they do not know as though they knew it, they lie.”30

About the aim of his “System,” he said, “The aim of the system is to bring man to conscience. Conscience is a certain faculty that exists in every normal man…. Conscience is a state in which one cannot hide anything from oneself, and it must be developed in man. This development is parallel and simultaneous with the development of consciousness.”31


  1. William Patrick Patterson,Struggle of the Magicians(Fairfax, CA: Arete Communications, 1996), 2.
    2. Ibid., 3–5
    3. Ibid., 11.
    4. Ibid., 24–25.
    5. Ibid., 24.
    6. Ibid., 36–38.
    7. Patterson, 43.
    8. Patterson, 49–51.
    9. James Moore, Ouspensky & Gurdjieff: An Historical Choreography.
    10. Patterson, 175–76.
    11. Moore.
    12. Patterson, 192.
    13. Ibid., 194.
    14. Ibid., 202–203.
    15. Marie Seton, “The Case of P. D. Ouspensky,”
    16. Moore.
    17. Patterson, 203.
    18. C. S. Nott, Journeys Through This World (New York: Samuel Weiser, 1978), 90.
    19. Ibid., 91.
    20. Ibid., 108.
    21. Patterson, 194.
    22. Ibid.
    23. Seton.
    24. Patterson, 204–205.
    25. John Pentland, “P. D. Ouspensky,” Gurdjieff International Review, Winter 1998/1999,
    26. P. D. Ouspensky, The Fourth Way (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1969), 3.
    27. Ibid., 71.
    28. P. D. Ouspensky, A New Model of the Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), 5.
    29. P. D. Ouspensky, The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), 13.
    30. Ibid., 40.
    31. Ouspensky, The Fourth Way, 151.

67 thoughts to “In Search of the Miraculous: Ouspensky and his Group”

    1. “Full” is a fully undeserved term, dear Lash 🙂
      Like firefighters thanking a dog for pointing out a fire hydrant.
      Because I am like that dog, roaming, sniffing at things and moving on before quite figuring out what they are about.
      In my life I did come across a few remarkable men but picked up nothing else aside from fact that they were remarkable before moving on to the next fire hydrant.

      1. Yes, “eternal recurrence”, like the eternal recurrence of Existentialist angst and weltzschmerz. I’m not surprised woebro played a big role in this eternal recurrence of woe. It’s too depressing for words. And coming on the High Holy Day of 420 of all days!!!

        Smoke some kanev bosem on this High Holy Day of 420, woebro, and chill out, it’s all good dude. Things aren’t so bad as this Ouspensky, Nietzsche, and ilk make it out to be.

        ~ when I find myself in times of trouble, Moon Goddess Mother Lasha comes to me speaking words of wisdom smoke some kanev bosem today on 420 and Let It Be, Let It Be, Let It Be, there will be an answer, Let it Be ~

        It’s a good thing to be intelligent, and it’s a good thing to be intellectual, but there is also such a thing as going way overboard being an intelligent intellectual you outsmart yourself and render yourself feeling totally hopeless and without Light, and forgetting to let the SUN shine in is NOT a good thing, remember? Anyone remember the SUN here where it’s always Night and Night without any Moon Light even?

        Hey! It’s 420 Day! Walk on the Bright Side of the street, at least for today. A little Sunshine never killed anyone. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if a little Sunlight gives the Existentialists severe allergies, lol. How Nietzsche “god is dead” Existentialists are addicted to their weltzschmerz, angst, and woe, an eternally recurring theme with them. Right, woebro?

      2. right TROJ.

        Right you are, indeed, indeedee, TROJ my bro in woe, and believe it or not, i walked a few blocks in this Ciudad Chabad of mine and at each damn corner, the hawkers were onto me with daily deals, Mayan Gold, hola dude, got some … every corner.

        And I wondered wassup, why me, why today, why the stars, the galaxy, the milky way, why TROJ … and i didn’t know which, Mayan Gold or Golda Mayer until you told me about kanev bosom, not sure what it is, not sure that it is a comfortable bosom to rub my tired weltschmerzy brow into or maybe a crown of thorns to mess up my brow even further.

        But this Holy Day of 420, this bright Führermas, when der Führer der Nazi Nation led out of Weimar wilderness, brings to me yet another joyous realization.

        Whatever angst, weltschmerz, schmerz, schmitz (wiping the snots of sorrow as i say that), one thing lifts me from this Vale of Tears and that is that
        IAM not TROJ.
        Thus i count my blessing(s) … (might be more than one).

    2. Sorry Lasha, your explanation about the transfer of your mother’s arthritis to a male Subud helper is very odd. The Subud website says that men and women do their latihan separately, each group supervised by helpers of the same sex. If you had said the pain was transferred to a woman helper that would have been understandable. But a male helper?

      If your parents had benefited enormously from Subud, why did you not join? What compelling reasons kept you away?

      1. In the early days of Subud, when the movement first came to England long before I was born, the sexes were not always separated. This must have been a later innovation. Because of the possibility of sexual improprieties taking place during mixed-sex latihans, it was probably considered wise and prudent to separate the sexes.

        The Subud hierarchy may insist on sexual segregation during “official” large-group latihans today, but even today this “rule” is not (and cannot) be strictly enforced in private homes and among families.

        My father used to do a 1-person latihan on his own at home; sometimes my mother would join him in the latihan. There’s nothing to prevent a mixed-sex family doing a private latihan at home, or a small party of say 12 people of both sexes doing a latihan together.

        In the Middle Ages, the sexes were segregated in church. The men sat on one side of the church, the women on the other. They were separated by the central aisle. This is no longer the case. Things have changed and moved on. There can be no hard and fast rules as to sexual segregation. Today we are moving into the realm of unisex toilets. I’m not so sure this is a good idea!

        Why didn’t I join Subud, you ask, if my parent benefited from it so enormously? Good question. The answer is, I was inducted into Subud at an early age and underwent 2-3 latihans. I then gave up because it didn’t work for me. I experienced nothing out of the ordinary.

        Years later, after I’d taken up a particular form of intensive meditation, I tried to join Subud again and was closely vetted by a group of Subud practitioners to see if I was “suitable”. They did a little “testing” (or mini-latihan) to determine my suitability.

        The answer: I was NOT suitable, because I was already doing meditation and (it was thought) should stick to that. A wise decision. They were basically saying: “Moderation in all things. What you are doing is enough. You don’t want to overdo it.”

      2. Thanks for your reply LD. Can we take it a bit further?

        It seems the founder of Subud, Pak Subuh, only “opened” men into Subud, leaving his wife/women of his household to perform that duty for women. He arrived in England in 1957 (?) and immediately established separate worship sessions for men and women. Unisex latihans might have taken place unofficially in small groups later – against the guidelines set by Pak Subuh?

        I found your comments on men and women worshipping God while mixing freely quite interesting. Among Muslims there is a new trend of imamahs leading a mixed congregation in Friday prayers. I wrote a blog once on the metaphysical aspects of Islam, at the end of which there were comments, including one on the role of imamahs.

        You can read the blog here:

        My comment on imamahs was:

        It is very hard to change ourselves inwardly but very easy to create trouble and think up new ways to disturb a community’s peace and harmony. You might be interested to know that in England there is a debate going on at the moment about female “imamahs” leading Friday prayers for MIXED Muslim congregations! My own contribution to this debate was:

        “Talking about appointment of imamahs is really a non-issue, at best a ridiculous imitation of the practices recently introduced in some religions.

        The basic point that we need to grasp is that Islam is NOT a religion. It is a Deen, a Way of Life, a System, that we have to observe in our daily lives. When we remember Allah, our attention needs to be directed to Him alone, cutting out all distractions. Islamic prayers are not like Christian prayers where women sit demurely by the side of men. In Islamic prayers you rise and bow and prostrate, and you may become so absorbed in the remembrance of Allah that you become forgetful of proper decorum. If we have a mixed congregation it would become impossible to let go of our inhibitions and lose ourselves in the Zikr. It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she rises from a prostate position and your eyes – inadvertently, of course – come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up!”

  1. LD –

    “According to this alarming theory, this is not the first time you are reading this article. These words you are reading now, you have read them before in countless incarnations. And you are doomed to go on reading them in countless identical lives yet to come.”

    I am ok with that theory. Good life here.

    I am wondering what version of Windows was available when I read this on my computer screen in the 10th century.

    1. @ Pat

      You weren’t reading this on your computer screen in the 10th century. Because there were no computers then; and you, Pat, didn’t exist in the 10th century. According to the theory, you were reading it in the 21st century, right now!

      LD is only explaining the theory. She’s not saying it’s true. This is one of those unscientific theories, like the Multiverse theory of the universe, that can never be proved.

      According to Karl Popper, for any theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable.

    2. Toby –

      “You weren’t reading this on your computer screen in the 10th century.”

      You cannot prove that. I had different names for things back then. We all did.

      Soup was called porridge. “Pea soup hot….Pea soup cold…” 🙂

  2. You never fail to amaze me LD. Might as well say ‘synchronicity’, even though trendy. I feel like a gong in a Japanese monastery that just been struck, and hard.
    Well over 40 years ago I too was introduced to the ideas of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.
    In New Mexico, at the nascent Theatre of All Possibilities. (Can’t say for this later manifestation, maybe more or less true to the original vision.)
    I shared a sleeping bag with my lover up against the adobe wall of their commune, covered with snow. She later joined the ‘Theatre’ and left for England.
    Of course the concepts were completely over my head. But even so, something might have stuck. And if I must turn on the same wheel endlessly, well I could do worse I suppose.
    Re: eternal recurrence, I highly recommend the mentioned book “The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin”, probably the most accessible of Ouspensky’s work for us regular folks.
    I do not regard time as either linear nor cyclical, preferring ‘simultaneous time’. However, since we can’t experience it as it is (we would simply go mad), we view it as a succession of moments. Calling it linear or cyclical is to me just bowing to necessity.
    Anyway, thanks to both you and Lobro. Fascinating.
    Namaste to all involved.

    “Madame Ouspensky said we always have time for a love affair. This is the human condition.” -P.D. Ouspensky

  3. An interesting film link below. I know the complete film can be found if you search the net.
    ‘Meetings with Remarkable Men’
    I often think that searching for remarkable men and women would be an adventure infinitely more rewarding than looking about for gold. But just as it’s said of gold, that you rarely find it if you are looking for it, so too I think that finding the ‘remarkable people’ around us requires a resonance close to theirs. ‘How do we get there’ is the question addressed by Messrs. Ouspensky and Gurdjieff.

  4. The evolutions of industry and literature and conscience refute the concept of “eternal recurrence”. Moreover, the very idea puts a boundary on God and His Creation.

  5. Thanks for this article. What a fascinating glimpse into the world of Ouspensky. My impression of the Gurdjieff group is that they admired the trickster, the riddle…so there is always the challenge of finding our way out of the matrix or of solving the riddle.

    Probably there is a self-similar pattern but not exactly because in the spiral of time you arrive back at the same place on the circle and yet that circle has moved. There might be a limited number of patterns that recur over and over again, only the content would be different. I say this because nature uses the same patterns but with infinite variety. So we might have a limited number of genes that are cut and pasted in a thousand different ways through epigenetic biochemistry, based on moment to moment environmental influences—so if my mood changes in reaction to something it changes my biochemistry at the cellular level. Nature always has some chaotic variation amidst the deeper cycle, its fundamentally dynamic not static. At least these are my opinions.

    1. Nature always has some chaotic variation amidst the deeper cycle

      I think that an essential characteristic of a random process (chaos) is that it is not provable.
      And this makes for an aesthetically more pleasing pattern, symmetry trading places with chaos in unexpected and exciting ways.
      These so-called non-periodic tiles were discovered by early Muslim thinkers and sometimes incorporated into the fabulous mosque mosaics of Persia.

      And that’s how it is, some questions must be asked, but never answered.
      Thus is the beauty and mystery preserved, they are crippled and soon dead without each other.

    2. Kapoore,
      At the risk repeating myself, it is the remarkable people here such as you that makes me return again and again. (I’m laughing, but I’m not joking.)
      This particular post of yours in itself is material enough for years of contemplation. Ah, the Trickster. The Riddle.
      Chaotic variation, chance, randomness, infinity, the Fates, Spirals of time indeed.
      When did we step on this train?
      You know when it is said in greeting “I honor the Divine in you”? Sometimes in some people the Sacred really is quite apparent.
      Thank you.

      “To be great is to go on.
      To go on is to be far.
      To be far is to return.”
      -Lao Tzu

  6. Kapoore, How arresting your words…”if my mood changes in reaction to something it changes my biochemistry at the cellular level. Nature always has some chaotic variation…”

    Your ‘mood’ – etymology = ‘heart, frame of mind’, your mood changes…your mind, heart, causing material (biochemistry) changes….in reaction to’ some-thing’….
    “chaotic variation” well, if in reaction then there is no autonomy. It is mechanical, not chaotic.

    “(One’s chief feature)…it is the imaginary personality: this is the chief feature for everybody.”
    -P.D. Ouspensky

    “For the substance of our life is almost exclusively composed of fiction. We fictionalize our future, and unless we are heroically devoted to truth, we fictionalize our past, refashioning it to our taste. We do not study other people; we invent what they are thinking, saying, and doing. Reality provides us with some raw material, just as novelists often take a theme from a news item, but we envelope it in a fog…”
    -Simone Weil, ‘Morality and Literature’

    Ouspensky, if I remember correctly, noted that the story of the Tower of Babel had nothing to do with ‘different languages’, but consisted in people misunderstanding one another due to attaching different meanings to the same words.
    So in personal matters, it seems the heart is to be preferred to the intellect.

    1. Hi Lobro,

      Very well done… and I agree that Darkmoon’s personal perspective adds a lot of intrigue to the article.

      I have attempted a few times to wade into Ouspensky, but I didn’t have much success. I do know the enneagram work in general (California is the center of the Enneagram of Personality). The enneagram is based on the musical scale that is contains “shocks,” or places where the irrational intervenes with the half tone. This follows from Pythagorus and the mathematics of rational and irrational numbers, so I think of those irrational numbers as chaotic. Also, music is driven by atonality because total harmony all the time would have no momentum. Biology also requires periods of instability to permit the growth process to take place—like the awkward teen-age years. So, I think of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff as students of Greek mathematics…

    2. S.W. I mention the change at the cellular level because I have recently been reading about the science of epigenetics–if you drink a glass of vodka, a message goes to the cells that travels via chemistry to the chromosomes and either turns a gene on or turns it off (up regulates or down regulates). The same goes for not drinking a glass of vodka… Basically we have no hardwiring with the genes just a blueprint that can be modified in a thousand ways to meet environmental circumstances. I was quite alarmed to learn that my continuous bad mood (sorry but true) could be programming my biology: So it popped up in the comment. Your poetic take on it is so much more positive. You obviously have been programming your biology better than I am with reading Simone Weil and others.

  7. Lasha;
    This was a most interesting article, and all the more so since it included the experience of your mother at the Subud gathering. J.G. Bennett covers Subud in a few of his books and I must say that between Bennett and Ouspensky, Bennett is by far the more interesting writer if for no other reason than that he actually based his writings and teachings on what he learned from Gurdjieff. One of Bennett’s most interesting books is entitled “Making a Soul” in which he states that man (the term “man” is used in the old sense in which “woman” is included as a matter of course) as he normally exists has NO soul, and must work at making one in order to ensure his or her continued existence after death. If you would permit me, I would like to quote a couple of interesting paragraphs from this book of his:

    “This is not really a new discovery, for 2500 years ago , Gautama Buddha and other Indian thinkers , such as Makkali Gosala, produced just the same arguments to demolish the then current belief that there is in man an independent, animating principle – the atman or breath – that is the same as what we call the anima or soul. Putting it shortly, we can say that no evidence can be found, either in the inner life or the outer behavior of man, that justifies the belief that he has a soul. This may seem very strange to you since it is commonly supposed that anyone who believes in God must also believe in the soul, and as I am certainly not an atheist, you might expect me to be an animist; that is, one who believes in the soul. The two beliefs are quite independent , both historically and psychologically, and I would ask you to further notice that although many people pay lip service to belief in the soul, no one takes this belief seriously, for if they did, they would scarcely devote 90% or more of their energies to the body that perishes and concern themselves so little with the needs of the immortal soul. The truth is that man does not and cannot believe in the soul because he has not got one, and, at bottom, he knows only too well that he has not. Moreover, if there were in all of us a ready-made would, assured of immortality, then the soul itself could hardly be the reason for our existence, If our souls were wanted for some higher purpose, then this present life could have been dispensed with and the soul could have been taken in all its newborn purity to serve the purpose for which it was intended. We must observe here a very important aspect of our problem; namely, that the reasons are not connected with what things are but with what they are able to give. The reason that we keep sheep is not that they are sheep but rather that they can give wool. The grass transforms air, water and sunshine into food, the cow transforms grass into milk, and if there is a reason for man’s existence then it must be also in some kind of transformation.
    Now if we ask ourselves what it is that is constantly being transformed in man himself, we can see at once that it is his experience, his sense perceptions, his thoughts, his feelings, his joys, his sorrows, his strivings, his moments of enlightenment, and his moments of love. At first, it might seem that these are even more perishable than a body and pass away into nothingness as soon as they have arisen. There is a great mistake here, for all these have the quality of energy , and energy does not perish – only its visible forms and outer manifestations change. Bodies die, works perish, but energy remains, undergoing endless transformations, rising and falling in the scale of existence but never destroyed. Since our human existences are also a form of energy, they cannot be destroyed but must go somewhere, and here at last we begin to find the answer to the question we have been pursuing. Out of every life is the possibility of something that serves the need of another life, and out of human life also there is the possibility of energy needed for a higher level of existence.
    This is the reason for man’s existence of the earth. All existence is energy, and all energy is needed for something, but the energy of human experience is of a different quality and a different significance from the experiences that can arise in animals and vegetables, in minerals in water or in air…. the reason for man’s existence must be to produce energy of a particular intensity and quality.”
    Bennett goes on in this vein a little more, but then comes the salient point in which he says;
    “Man exists on the earth in order to produce energy of a certain intensity and quality, and this energy is liberated through his experiences of joy and suffering and through his response to the forces of death and birth. The energy produced in this way is required for a form of life higher than man himself, just as man in his turn requires energies produced by forms of life lower than his own…. We are now left with the last and strangest question of all. What being or beings greater than ourselves require the energies released by our human experiencing? If we could know the answer to this question, we should have discovered the reason for our existence.”
    I am skipping some parts here so as not to make this entry ridiculously long, but further along he says;
    “We should not be surprised that we cannot see for ourselves how and for what we are needed. Sheep do not understand the need for their existence. At most, they may observe that from time to time their wool is sheared. Perhaps they may even realize that they are slaughtered before the natural term of their life has ended. Do you suppose that nothing like that happens to us men? Are we not also from time to time subjected to painful experiences that deprive us of our wool – that is, our comfortable sense of security and well being – and is it not true that our lives are far shorter than they would be according to our natural constitution?…. We ought to see for ourselves that we should need a much longer life if we were to have any real hope of understanding our destiny and learning how to direct it. Man grows old and dies just as he is beginning to gain experience of life and to have the possibility of judgement. It is not arranged for our welfare but appears to be under the control of some power we do not understand – a power that uses us for its purposes – even when we think we serve our own egoism.”
    So Bennett is saying (and he is only repeating what Gurdjieff taught) that man is being farmed, as it were for a nutrient that we provide to some higher form of entity. Further along, Bennett states that “Gurdjieff taught that man as we know him is asleep, that he lives in a dream world with very few real experiences…such a man is no more than an automatic transformer of energy”.
    The key , the way out of this situation according to Bennett and Gurdjieff is to acquire conscious control over one’s energies and so bring about a transformation of one’s own being that can be called “the acquisition of a soul”. The rest of Bennett’s book deals with this transformation. Bennett is an interesting writer with much constructive information to impart (given later in this book and his other writings) which is in stark contrast to Ouspensky who mainly was at odds with Gurdjieff and whose ego seemed to have gotten the best of him. By the way, Bennett wrote of his experiences with Sufi teachers as well, and his book “The Masters of Wisdom” imparts much information on the history of that form of mysticism.

    1. @ George

      I could relate lots of fascinating stories about Bennett, a remarkable man in many ways. I agree wth you that he was more of a “character” than Ouspensky. Gurdjieff remains the most enigmatic figure of all, suspected by many to be a charlatan. However, it’s to be noted that Bennett wrote a long book about Gurdjieff and obviously held him in very high regard. He was G’s disciple. Bennett was too intelligent a man to be taken in by a fake.

  8. @ Lasha

    The story you related about your mother reminds me of the Pentecostals here in the USA.

    The Pentecostals get their name from the incident in Acts 2:9-11. In their church services, they commonly roll around on the floor of their church while babbling incoherently which they claim is speaking in tongues because they believe that the Holy Ghost is upon them. While this is going on people are healed of their maladies for the same reason. Because of their services, the Pentecostals used to be referred to as Holy Rollers which was not considered to be a compliment.

    Most of the Pentecostals that I have known seem to stress Acts, for obvious reasons, the writings of Paul, Revelations, and the Old Testament with not much emphasis on the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. I suspect that the reason they do not stress the Gospels as much as other scriptures is because what they do and believe is not very consistent with what Jesus taught and did, but I could be wrong about the reason since I have never become involved with them to any serious degree.

    In my opinion, if they actually practiced what Jesus taught and did, the Pentecostals would not have to be rolling around on the floor or babbling. Jesus simply commanded the desired result, the healing, and the person being healed did whatever Jesus said to do, the mustard seed of faith, after he commanded the desired healing. Jesus sometimes stated that it was their faith, the mustard seed of doing what he said to do, that made them whole. Jesus did say that people following his word would do even greater things than he.

    Jesus’ method sure seems to be a lot more simple than what the Pentecostals practice and what you described happened to your mother resulting in her lack of pain. In Jesus’ method, it only takes two people, the one giving the command and the one being healed doing a simple thing instructed after the command.

    As for the Eternal Recurrence, this appears to be a hamster wheel for humans where a person that enjoys evil can continue the enjoyment of evil for eternity without penalty, a jewish paradise. The jewish God of the Old Testament would be diabolical enough to do this to mankind, but not the loving Heavenly Father of Jesus. Except for the posted article, I am not familiar the teachings of Ouspensky, nor so I want to be. With only the knowledge that Ouspensky drank himself to death, I feel quite comfortable sticking with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

    1. Ung –

      There are many Pentecostals here where I live. One of my daughters joined the Pentecostal Church in 1985 or so. That was against our wishes. My wife was raised Catholic and I was raised Lutheran.

      My daughter and her husband, from a huge family, are satisfied there. It is a place for support. If they like it, I like it. Members are all susceptible to the good, bad and ugly just like the rest of us. They die young just like we all do.

      You may find it interesting that even the scorned Scientology has a ‘feeling healing’ method. It is referred to as Touch Assist. See the pic:

      “The Touch Assist is the most widely used and probably best known assist. It was first developed in the early 1950s and has been in use ever since.

      “The application of Touch Assists is not limited to injuries. They are not just for the banged hand or the burned wrist. They can be done on a dull pain in the back, a constant earache, an infected boil, an upset stomach. In fact, the number of things this simple but powerful process can be applied to is unlimited!”

      1. @ Pat

        Touch Assist, not bad for a religion founded on a bet by three science fiction writers around a table on who could create a religion. Hubbard won the bet, but I do not remember the payoff by the other two. As I recall, it wasn’t much.

        I would have thought that any Touch Assist would have been the absence of pain by the person being removed of all their wealth by the Hubbard church of Scientology, same as the “Christian” book of Acts that the “Church” capitalized on so wonderfully to become the wealthiest organization on the planet. Comparatively, Hubbard was obviously an amateur at wealth accumulation.

      2. Ung –

        “I would have thought that any Touch Assist would have been the absence of pain by the person being removed of all their wealth by the Hubbard church of Scientology, same as the “Christian” book of Acts that the “Church” capitalized on so wonderfully to become the wealthiest organization on the planet.

        Yep…. The immense wealth of the Vatican will never be touched by any other cult.

      3. More unfounded libel, Pat? I am shocked, to say the least … not.
        Even the Jew media don’t quite go to your catholic bashing lengths:
        Says CNN Money:

        The Catholic Church is the spiritual home to 1.1 billion people around the world

        The Vatican Bank has $8 billion in assets

        That’s $7/faithful, wow, Pat, you sure discovered a giant conspiracy here, one sure to gladden the hearts of Rev Hagee, maybe he can work that into his next sermon.

        How they are the world’s biggest cult … almost … About $22 Billion In Gold, Diamonds, Jewels Found In Indian Temple
        Just one Indian temple worth 3 times more than the total Vatican Bank assets!?

        Maybe better go back to Putin-bashing, so much safer to slander him for $200 billion of plundered Russian wealth, not that you ever need to prove even $1.
        Holocaust virus seems to be ineradicable.

      4. Lobro –

        Thanks for reminding me about CNN and Putin…. since you use CNN now… and begged for a Putin bashing… which I enjoy. I enjoy bashing all national liars and criminals.

        CNN reported last year than Putin is personally worth many times more than Vatican and Indian Temple cults combined. If you can believe CNN…. as you quote them now.

        Putin’s net-worth is $200 billion says Russia’s once largest foreigner investor

        CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA GPS features an interview with Bill Browder, the CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, formerly Russia’s largest foreign investor, and a once supporter of President Putin.

        He also describes the dynamics between power and wealth in Russia, claiming that during “the first eight or 10 years of Putin’s reign over Russia, it was about stealing as much money as he could. And some people, including myself, believe that he’s the richest man in the world, or one of the richest men in the world,…..
        with hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that was stolen from Russia.”

        On Putin’s networth:
        “I believe that it’s $200 billion. After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and the amount of money that hasn’t been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that money is in property, bank – Swiss bank accounts, shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his cronies.”

        On Putin and his cronies:
        “These guys killed Sergei Magnitsky, my lawyer, for money. They all got rich, they all got bank accounts and villas and cars. Why should we allow them to come to America, travel to America, keep their accounts here, spend that money?”

      5. Pat,
        Once again you fail to observe that I use the enemy sources (Jew press, CNN Money, how much more Judaic can it get) to get my point across, viz, if the enemy, to whom lying, slander and self-aggrandizement is a religious principle, says something about the target (which i am defending), then this statement will be maximally hurtful and negative, therefore I am placing an upper bound on the amount of the negative bias, in this case against Vatican.
        By the same principle, when such a smooth lying enemy says something about himself or his allies, by quoting him, I am placing an upper bound on the amount of self serving hype.
        I told you this before and the reason that you so blithely ignore this basic point is yours to acknowledge privately if not publicly.
        I am restating them for the benefit of other readers, since I know that you will continue to ignore them in future, when it comes to slandering your favorite victims, eg, Putin, Russia or Catholicism, fairness and facts are as useless to you as tits on bull.

        So let’s look a bit more closely at your method.
        Who is this Bill Browder whom you quote so enthusiastically in order to lay the smear on Putin?
        Well hello THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE (remember my points above, viz, they’ll be maximally supportive of native son), so what do they say about the issues at hand:

        Vladimir Putin is no friend of the Jews.
        So says William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as the leader’s “number one enemy” in his book: Red Notice.

        Browder, 51, is on a mission to bring down the Russian president [go Pat Bill, go!], the feared leader who has helped transform this world-renowned financier into a leading human rights activist.

        Wow, Pat, what a great source you have there, the next time you run into him, mind getting an autograph for me please?

        Equally, he stiffens at any mention of Putin that may be construed as positive.

        Who are they talking about here, would it be you Pat? Sounds like the proverbial shoe that fits.

        In September, Putin even posed for a meet, greet and handshake with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the two leaders pledged to co-ordinate military actions over Syria.

        “He has got a lot of allies in the far-right who are virulently antisemitic,” Browder hits back. “Putin is pretty smart about who he should or should not alienate. He knows that, if he alienates Jewish people, he alienates a very powerful group of people around the world.”

        Pat, you had better straighten out your buddy Bill, ok? We all know (you posted a number of times on this) that Putin loves Jews, hangs out with rabbis, is in fact a crypto-Jew himself, his mother was Jewish, was raised by a rabbi, etc, etc.
        You can’t let Bill Browder get away with this, can you.

        Well, Mighty Bill is loading ammo into the favorite Jewish weapon as he goes Putin-huntin’

        This summer, he says he met “big Hollywood players” in a bid to turn his book into a major film.

        “The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film,” he says. “I have been approached by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what the best constellation of players will be on this.

        “There are a lot of people looking at it. It’s still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting options, but I’m not going to name any names.

        “This is a classic Hollywood good versus evil tale, the true story of one man’s fight for justice – and there’s nothing more compelling getting some justice in a highly unjust world. 😀 😀 😀

        “Putin is going to go crazy when this film gets made.”

        Get your popcorn ready Pat, as your best man readies for a home run swing at Putin, and the best of all – are you ready for it – Bill, the fearless human rights fighter, a philanthropist (all all big time Jews) is going to make sure to
        bring some justice to the highly unjust world.
        At long last, we are all on the same page, aren’t we.

        (Red Notice: How I became Putin’s No 1 enemy by Bill Browder, £18.99
        while supplies last, at this great price, you’ll get a 50% discount when Mighty Bill recovers $200 billion from Putin, obtained by pulling gold tooth fillings from 6 million murdered Jews in Russia)
        Keep us posted on the quest for justice, Pat.

      6. Lobro –

        “Keep us posted on the quest for justice, Pat.”

        Sho nuff… glad to help. 🙂

        Top 5 Richest Politicians

        Just this week….

        Russia’s criminal leaders will have to get their financial help from China’s criminal leaders who have joined forces with London’s Pharisee-Jew Bankers at the World Bank. So much for BRICS… and BRICS Bank.

        Wednesday, 20 April 2016
        Chinese Mega-bank Partners With World Bank for New World Order

        “The many establishment analysts who portrayed the Communist Chinese dictatorship’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as a supposed “rival” to the Western globalist-led international economic order must be awfully embarrassed right now.
        And those who believed them, hoping the brutal Beijing regime’s bank was going to stand up to the World Bank-International Monetary Fund axis in particular, must be sorely disappointed.

        It turns out the scandal-plagued World Bank and the Communist Party of China-controlled AIIB are going to be proud partners in globalism.”

      7. This is a classic Hollywood good versus evil tale, the true story of one man’s fight for justice – and there’s nothing more compelling getting some justice in a highly unjust world
        I hope we are all equally gutted by this statement in Çifut Chronicles or whatever it calls itself.
        Because the long suffering Jew has been at the receiving end of injustice, meted out by cruel Goyim, in the present case Putin, the ruler of this highly unjust, Jew-unfriendly world, for centuries upon centuries of persecution, I hope that these Hollywood good versus evil tales make this abundantly clear as one HE-MAN embarks upon the quest to see the justice done, sallying forth from Hollywood, the shining citadel of truth and justice.

        And maybe after the justice is done and Putin lies dead in the dust with flies crawling on his blackened face, Hillary cackling like chicken on crystal meth, “we the Jews came, we the Jews saw, he, the goy is dead, we can aim those big Hollywood guns on the next purveyor of injustice and angst against the Jews – Vatican and its vast wealth of hundreds upon hundreds of dollars stashed in the Vatican Bank vaults, all stolen from Jews, naturally – is there a harder working nation in the world, more deserving of its hard earned geld?

      8. Well Pat, I think now we are treading trickier waters, with “The New American” and Alex Newman.
        I can’t prove it, I may be wrong, but I do smell some kind of gatekeeping outfit, maybe CIA front.
        I took a look at Alex Newman’s writings and one word is glaringly absent from them all.


        Alex seems never to have heard of them, I guess still ahead of his level up on the learning curve.
        But he cannot mention Chinese government without the “brutal dictatorship” qualifier, so got that down pat (any puns strictly in the eye of beholder 😉 ).
        He goes out of his way the eulogize passing of one Samuel L Blumenfeld, in Samuel Blumenfeld: A real hero of our age
        Exclusive: Alex Newman honors co-author on his passing

        Oakahaay … maybe he is, withholding judgment, nose somewhat wrinkled.
        I mean, a man gotta honor his co-author, don’t he.
        So now, Samuel Blumenfeld is a ghost writer …

      9. Lobro –

        I told you well over a year ago …. that New American (JBS) is run by Pharisee-Jews, and has been since the 60s…. just like ALL of the internet today..!!

        Anything and everything on the web is filtered and approved by Pharisee-Jew orgs… If you see it…. they want you to see it.

      10. Sorry for initials…

        JBS = John Birch Society. 🙂

        New American was renamed from American Opinion Magazine.

  9. Thank you LD for a fascinating and informative article. A friend and I discovered and studied “In Search of the Miraculous ” in the seventies in the then Rhodesia , and that foundation served me well in my own growth over the years. Yes , we (as a species) are asleep, and awakening is a multi step journey undertaken by the individual , or not. The illusion that I am awake is chief characteristic of the sleep, and is the core of the most dis empowering belief on the planet, and the most widespread . What does a sheep know of mutton ?

    1. Uncle :

      “In Search of the Miraculous…..” is an interesting piece which brings up a lot of profound Spiritual issues. It’s a shame there are those who are going way OFF TOPIC and effectively distracting from the main feature article by bringing Putin into the discussion. Just because Ouspensky was Russian and Putin is Russian doesn’t mean the article is about Putin. Do please try to stay ON TOPIC. { Unless you suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, then, lol, that’s another story }. This is a good time for you to step in, Uncle, and remind everyone to please stay ON TOPIC. Thank you, TROJ.

      1. @ TROJ


        This article, as you say, is about Ouspensky and the miraculous. It is not about Putin. However, the two people engaged in discussing Putin here, Pat and Lobro, are obviously more interested in Putin than they are in the miraculous.

        The earlier comments of the other commenters are all topic. Until we get to this comment by Pat … in which he mentions the Vatican.

        April 22, 2016 at 12:54 am

        In response, Lobro then refers very casually to Putin, but Lobro is not attempting to derail the subject and start a new discussion on Putin. It’s just a throwaway line in which he says:

        “Maybe better go back to Putin-bashing, so much safer to slander him . . .”

        After this, there’s no stopping Pat. He’s away and running with the stick between his teeth. It’s Putin he wants to talk about — and to hell with the miraculous!

        Mind you, Lobro gets side-tracked too. He can’t resist taking the bait from Pat. Pat is without doubt the most prolific poster on this site. He has generated more off-topic comments than any other poster here in living memory. Trying to keep him on-topic is virtually impossible. He always has a valid excuse.

        “Someone else started it first! I was only responding!”

        Quite true. 🙂

        Pat should try harder to stay on topic. If Pat is not interested in commenting on the articles on this website, maybe he should start up his own site.

        We could then all switch over to Pat’s website, called, and post off-topic comments like crazy.

        I’d be banned of course. Because I’d be the only on-topic poster! 🙂

        1. @ Sardonicus

          Pat is without doubt the most prolific poster on this site. He has generated more off-topic comments than any other poster here in living memory. Trying to keep him on-topic is virtually impossible.

          I’d like to remind you that your own comment is off-topic. 🙂

      2. Ok, TROJ, Sard, you are both quite right, I forgot which article this discussion was under.
        It’s just that I generally don’t like BASELESS, which is to say, without factual evidence, attacks on any subject, not only those that I favor personally, so when another dog steals my stick, i am off running after him.

        Now applying duct tape and no mo … gh.

    2. I guess Eternal Recurrence is a GOOD THING after all. Eternal Recurrence means Putin will always repeatedly defeat jew-owned ISIS of ZOG in Syria, and Eternal Recurrence means Trump will forever be a thorn in the side of the Republican leadership and America’s overbearing tyrannical ZOG Establishment in general. I can get into this Eternal Recurrence head trip after all, BRING IT ON! FOREVER MORE! 🙂 .

  10. The idea of “eternal return” is absurd in the extreme. If it were true humans would have no free will and anything like spiritual growth would be impossible. There are cycli in nature, as anyone can observe, and this is perhaps the source of this erroneous idea.

    As for Gurdjeff and Ouspensky, the former openly bragged about fooling his pupils, the latter was more sincere, but too intellectual. Both were not “spiritual masters” in any sense of the word.

    1. @ Franklin Ryckaert

      The idea of “eternal return” is absurd in the extreme. If it were true, humans would have no free will and anything like spiritual growth would be impossible.

      Most people would agree with this very sensible comment. I have no problem with it either. However, reflect more closely. First, why should the idea of the Eternal Return lack validity just because it is “absurd” and rules out the possibility of free will? Surely you admit the possibility of an absurd universe in which we are all automata? I am not saying this IS the case! I hope it isn’t. I hope the universe does makes sense and that there is indeed an Intelligent Designer.

      The idea of having to do the same thing over and over again ad infinitum — with no variation whatever — would appear on the surface to be intolerable. A deterministic hell. No free will. Man: a clockwork rat on an eternal treadmill. But a little reflection shows it isn’t necessarily so bad. For each time the “same” act is done, it is done with the illusion that it is done with free will for the first time.

      We will never know for sure that the things we do have not been done before … or that we are bound to keep on doing the same things for ever.

      Nonsense? Maybe. But that’s the whole point according to this inverted world view: the universe, they insist, IS nonsensical. Nothing adds up. Nothing really makes sense. We are all wandering in the dark, lost in an infinite labyrinth of absurdities.

      This is a far cry from the comforting doctrines of the great world religions that are offered to us as tranquilizers lest we go mad.

      1. Ultimately, all we have to help us and ease our burden is faith: faith that “all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

      2. The “recurring cycles” theory sits well with the Jew, probably his favorite, eg, roman Polansky’s film, “the tenant”, kabbalah all the way.
        As with the rest of jew’s cosmology, pardon me, G-dology, once morality is off the list of axioms, it makes perfect sense.

        To see how it works, just ask the old Alzheimer, for example, Reagan in his dotage raking leaves that his secret service minders would then spread around again for him to resume raking, since it was one thing he enjoyed doing.

        In the recurring cycles, senile dementia is a blessing, not a curse.

        If our memory cells were programmable hard drives, then everything that we consider experiences would be just lines of code and maybe we were born yesterday after all and tomorrow will have memories overwritten by new information as suits the programmer, all our notions of the laws of physics and logic nothing but certain “conviction genes” up-regulated, to use kapoore’s term.

        If someone fancies such a scenario, ok by my me, i choose others.

        Btw, i did witness a “subaru healing” event (sorry, too hard to look up the proper term at this point in writing, you know, your mom’s back problem cured thing) and totally forgot about it.
        It was among the Arizona Hopis, at one of their mesas north of Flagstaff.
        A local healer, whose house was pointed to us, at first claimed that he possessed no such powers, until my weeping companion, a danish girl who suffered terrible back and in fact, whole body pains due to a car accident 15 years back in Copenhagen that left her in coma, body broken, multiple fractures, partially paralyzed, etc, etc, convinced him that she had come all the way from Europe for just this reason (she said she felt a mystical call from someone in the States, an Injun telling her to show up there, so i humored her by flying out to Phoenix, renting a car and driving up into the mountains of the Hopi).

        Well, she was cured, believe it or not, even if it was all in her head, the agony was real and then gone.
        And the witchdoc claimed that a curse had been laid on her and that he had lifted it, even told her who it was that cooked it up – some Kurd relative back in Denmark.
        he had her lying naked on a table while he walked around with some incense, a feather and as i gather, some spirit catcher thru which he peered at her as thru a lens, she was in terrible pain, crying rivers, shaking, sweating, the works.
        And then, cured.
        And i forgot all about it … even had pictures on facebook of some buddies i made there, no drinking on reserve, though.
        Well, the Hopi pulled another stunt, even more amazing, their kachinas seem to do it as a matter of course, the locals are quite relaxed about it.
        And they allowed me and the woman to witness the stuff, she because of her faith and i think me, because of lack of it but having an open mind … and a short memory.

          1. If you give it some thought, the concept of “eternal recurrence” makes more logical sense if time is circular and not linear. The ones who promote the Big Bang, Darwinian Evolution, the concept of Reincarnation which is very similar to Darwinian Evolution [ life improves, evolves to higher states of consciousness as time goes on ]. But the thing is, if time is circular, then you eventually go back to where you started, so all this Darwinian Evolution and Reincarnation is for naught, as Life devolves back to to the state Life was in when Life started off on the circle. If time is circular, there can be such a thing as evolving into higher states of consciousness, but at at one point on the circle [ say at the 6:30 P.M. mark ] as the circle makes its way back to the starting point Life doesn’t evolve anymore, but devolves ; And as the circle gets closer and closer to the starting point, Life only devolves and devolves back to how things were when Life started off on the circle.

            Actually, if the premise is time is circular, “eternal recurrence” makes more logical sense than Darwinian Evolution and Reincarnation. Darwinian Evolution and Reincarnation, if you think about it enough, can not be reconciled with the premise “time is circular”. While “eternal recurrence” can not be totally reconciled with the premise “time is circular”, it can be reconciled to the premise ‘time is circular” to a greater degree than can Darwinian Evolution/Reincarnation. Eternal Recurrence can at least be reconciled somewhat to the premise “time is circular”. Darwinian Evolution/Reincarnation can not be reconciled at all to the premise “time is circular”.

            I’m not convinced time is circular. I’m just pointing out if the premise is “time is circular” than “eternal recurrence” is more logical than Darwinian Evolution/Reincarnation , considering that a circle always goes back to where it started. The Darwinian Evolutionists/Reincarnationists would have us believe Life only evolves into higher states of consciousness as time passes, but if time is circular as they say it is, eventually all Life will be devolving back into amoebas as the circle gets closer and closer to its starting point, the Big Bang. With the Big Bang, Life started off as amoebas, then started traveling on the circle of time, so eventually Life will devolve back to the amoeba stage, if time is circular. “Time is Circular” undermines Darwinian Evolution and the conventional way of looking at Reincarnation. The conventional view of Reincarnation is very similar to Darwinian Evolution.

            The concept that Life evolves into higher and higher states of consciousness with the passing of time can not be reconciled with the concept “time is circular” as a circle always returns back to its starting point, and the Darwinian Evolutionists/Reincarnationists tell us the Circle of Time started off with the Big Bang and soon after that starting point on the Circle of Time Life was in the amoeba stage. So ultimately on the Circle of Time Life is not really evolving into higher states of consciousness as the penultimate goal, but Life is ultimately really devolving/returning back to the amoeba stage of development as the penultimate goal.

      3. LD,

        If you are interested in Gurdjieff, you might be interested in Nisargadatta Maharaj, whose practice with crystallizing one’s individual sense of ‘I’ or ‘self’ is more direct than Gurdjieff’s (who I appreciate very much). Nisargadatta’s path is called a ‘short cut’ because its work goes right to the base essence of consciousness, I am, rather than playing around with things external to that base.

        This is a good little pamphlet –

      4. @ Lobro

        In Japanese “subaru” means “united”. It also is the term for the Pleiades

      5. “The idea of “eternal return” is absurd in the extreme.”

        It’s extremely simple. What do you observe? How many times have you seen it snow? How many times has the snowfall been exactly the same? Every day is new, how many of your days are exactly the same? Of all the human and animal life how many are perfectly identical? How many fingerprints or ear shapes, of which there is endless repetition, are exactly the same? Among the multitude of stars or planets, how many are identical? How many times do you observe or experience perfect and exact repetition in your life, the world you inhabit, or the universe surrounding you?

        Everything is cyclical; again this can be observed. Time must follow this universal law, as does everything else. The only thing that seemingly alters its course is our perception of it. We can think time is linear, we can believe it encompasses endless loops of perfect repetition, but our perceptions will not alter reality. One can believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it, but only observation and experience will reveal the truth. Even then, one must remain aware they can be deceived, for our senses are not perfectly reliable.

        Therefore, what is the possibility that existence is an endless cycle of perfect repetition? That this is the one thing that defies the universal laws you personally experience? Is it not in keeping with your personal experience that each of life’s repetitions would be like the ear, fingerprint or snowflake; a more or less perfect copy of the fundamental structure, but with altered form?

      6. Right lasha

        “Hope” is toothless. In the end, only faith in the form of power that comes from Christ will dissipate these phantoms of fear in restoring a Divinely-intended reality

    1. The true state of time simply conveys presence; presently. Your presence, my presence, etc.
      The true state of space allows presences their movement

  11. Eternal Recurrence is not anything one should get totally depressed about. I mean after all, Eternal Recurrence means Pat and lobro will forever be crying and complaining because Putin wiped-out ZOG’s ISIS in Syria, LOL, and the TWO will also be forevermore crying and complaining Trump is running for The Presidency of the United States of America, LOL. It’s very entertaining, really. Eternal Entertainment from the TWO, lol. Gee, I really do hope I’m not OFF TOPIC by dragging Trump into this Spiritual discussion, LOL.

  12. Xenophanes, a contemporary, wrote derisively of Pythagoras that, “Once they say that he was passing by when a dog was being whipped and he took pity and said, ‘Stop, do not beat it; for it is the soul of a friend that I recognized when I heard it giving tongue.’”

  13. It appears that a tremendous amount of time is spent by humans trying to find and establish a relationship with the Heavenly Father, their source. Because of that, there are a significant number of people willing to take advantage of that search for their own benefit which results in numerous organized religions leading the most of humanity into confusion.

    What if the spiritual search had a really simple conclusion that everyone could find with little effort and astounding results? Well, there is.

    For the sake of a place to start, assume that what Jesus was teaching was/is the truth about the location of the Heavenly Father, how to establish a relationship with him, and how to do it. I’ll convert to simple questions to illustrate the simplicity.

    Where is God? Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within you. There can be no Kingdom without the presence of the King, God. So, God is within you. No need to look somewhere else or have a statue, etc.

    How could God be within me when I am guilty of not being a good person? Just because you do not feel that you are worthy enough for God to be within you does not mean that God is not there. It’s just means that you have not acknowledged his presence within you so you cannot tell that he is there.

    How do I acknowledge God’s presence within me? That is super simple. Just say so. Just say out loud, volume counts, “I have the Kingdom of God within me.” Presto, you have just established a relationship with God. You are now empowered to do good so that the relationship expand within you and around you.

    What are the rules for doing what God wants me to do? The short answer is the Two Great Commandments according to Jesus, paraphrased, First; love God with all your being and Second; love your fellowman as yourself. Jesus said that whatever you do or do not do to your fellowman is the same as doing it to him/God which simply means that the only way to show God that you love him is how you treat your fellowman. If you wouldn’t do it to God, don’t do it to your fellowman.

    Is there more details I need to know? There is an owners manual for your relationship with God which is completely consistent with the basic two rules, the First and Second Great Commandments. The owners manual is the Gospels (Good News) of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Read them, think about them, analyze them, and practice them. The Gospels are somewhat repetitive and really short when compared to the owners manuals of other religions.

    How am I empowered in my relationship with God? It’s all in the Gospels. In addition to being nice and helpful to your fellowman in “normal” ways, you can learn how to effectively pray to get results for yourself and your fellowman. You can learn how to heal yourself and your fellowman. You can learn to protect yourself and your fellowman from harmful natural occurrences like storms. You can learn how to do most anything for the good of yourself and your fellowman.

    Could it really be this simple? Yes. Lies and deception are what has made the teachings of Jesus appear to be complex. Complex religious philosophies and theories are distractions designed to mislead humanity to keep them from the simple truth for the benefit of evil.

    Hopefully this short description of the simplicity of Jesus’ teachings are helpful for those seeking the spiritual truth of the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and life itself.

    1. Granted Ungenius, the simple truth represented in Jesus’ teachings. But also note the simplicity of Satan in HIS representation of the Big Lie as Iillustrated in my post below

      I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer

  14. There’s an expression – “through the eons”. With the word “through” seen in the proper context, a perception of what is being conveyed changes. Instead of an implication of time passing – “from the beginning to the end of”, there is, “by the means or agency of”

    “aeon” signifies a “space of time; an agent for presence; being in the present; the setting of a “now” existence; still*-ness (being yet; everlasting). When seized, it became known as “time” – a state of captivity; a macrocosmic parasite whose captives (us) were ‘carjacked’, with our vehicles driven over a “course” – a road going through “minefields of mortality” on the way to a yard where a handmaiden of Father Time called gravity lowers us into the ground.

    This is the reality of a death culture which is rationalized in voluminous works of religious doctrine. Their components in Eastern thought are simply of a longer standing there than elsewhere.

    I believe therefore I am prone to rationalizing deceptiveness

    *still: adv: up to and during this or that time

    The “masters of the universe” are the greatest of all possible liars. They have duped Mankind from Day One by attributing to THEM the actions of the true Creator. But Creation is an INTEGRATION which they have ‘dissed’ (DIS-integrate) Institutions of science fall for this, too. And like Goebbels said, if a lie is repeated often enough….

    coil: to twist into circular, spiral or winding shape

    to ensnare like a serpent into a fixed, or constrained position

    to “inspire the ether” (serpentine), where in this context, “time” is what “inspires” the ether (“space). This inspiration of time is a corrupting intrusion; a tool for dis-integrating; a trespass. “inspire”, here, simply means: to affect; incite – stir up*

    So what is a “light-year” anyway? What sort of proportion can its implied distance bring that doesn’t elicit a sense of isolation?

    *to keep a coil (disturbance) What was disturbed?

    The Divine Order of Creation.

    Call it mystical. Call it ineffable

    “Life is meant to be a joyous experience of never-ending discovery in an unfolding of Imagination. It’s occurence the wonderment of a Divine Mystery.”

    1. A re-phrasal:

      “I live in a world of make-believe therefore I am prone to rationalizing deceptiveness.”

    2. ever a self-critical writer..

      the last sentence is better written to say:

      “It’s occurence an uninterrupted journey of wonderment moving through an awesome mystery.”

  15. Lasha (if I may be so bold),
    few there are who tread the round
    implacably till Hell grows cold.
    Most souls are drawn to up or down,

    To Sattva’s light or Tamas’ murk
    from Rajas’ repetitious spin.
    At intervals your path must fork
    To realms where new love can begin.

    Your door at death can lead beyond
    the trip back to your mother’s womb.
    Souls are trapped by self-made bond
    And perverse urge to will their doom.

    Alas for those cast in the guise
    of Nietzsche or Ivan Osokin!
    Dare to rise into the skies
    where sylphs and angels are your kin.

  16. “This would be the Ultimate Torture if you knew for sure that the thing you are about to do is the thing you have already done, a trillion zillion times, in an infinite series of identical repetitions. IDENTICALLY . . . FOREVER AND FOREVER . . . WORLD WITHOUT END!”

    Upon further contemplation of this subject, I have come up with two interesting movies incorporating the different concepts of reincarnation.

    Terry Gilliam’s “Twelve Monkeys” puts “eternal recurrence” into cinematic form. After seeing the movie a couple of times, I realized James Cole (Bruce Willis) was doomed to an eternal and repetition of the exact same life. As a young boy, he unwittingly witnesses his own death. He dreams about the event until he finally replays his death as an adult. What is odd is how the characters responsible for his death evidently move past the event to an altered future. Twelve Monkeys was inspired by the French short film “La Jetée” and borrows several concepts directly from that file.

    From what might be considered a more traditional perspective comes the movie “Groundhog Day”. This film alludes to the karmic wheel, or spiral, of life where repetition polishes one’s actions to a point of enlightenment. This movie was voted an all time favorite by Buddhist monks, no doubt because it provides excellent insight into one of the fundamental aspects of Buddhist philosophy within a western frame of reference.

    If you haven’t seen these films yet, I highly recommend them both, as neither are the usual Hollywood fare.

  17. In Search of the Miraculous is indeed a great book. I would also recommend Rodney Collin’s Theory of Celestial influence. Of course many Eastern writings cover the same exact aspects of objective truths using a different vocabulary.

    Many people have difficulty seeing the practical basis to these teachings but they can be used for ones personal development and improvement. I illustrate the capabilities of these ideas in understanding the current world condition in terms of the larger cosmic forces in two books: Fifth Sun Rising volumes I and II. Available on Amazon. This begins where Colin stopped in regard to the evolution of culture and civilization. In the second volume I explore further into the esoteric basis to volume I. I have made this information available for those who really want to understand and are able to do so.

Comments are closed.