Hello Gary,

Please forgive me for using this message board to get word to you, as I've not read your book on Ouspensky. . . But I continue to loan out your Steiner biography to students who need an introduction to his life and work, and I am looking forward to "Occult Politics." (I just saw this in the Spring catalog as I was sending a manuscript to Quest Books today)
I'm so delighted to see what you have been up to since coming out to visit you on the edge of the tar pits so many years ago.

Yours,
Kevin Dann

Gurdjieff seemed to teach and live from the most extreme persuasion of the Idea found in as ancient a text as the "Siva Sutras", in particular Sutra 23, by Singh:

Magnah svacittena pravis'et

translates- plunged; with the mind of the inner I without any thought-construct; should enter

"One should enter into it by being plunged into it with an awareness of the inner I without a thoughtconstruct."

The sutra means that one should (mentally) plunge into one's essential Self.

One should give up gross pranayama and even the inner subtle one and thus the highest pulsation of consciousness which is beyond even the subtle pranayama is obtained and that way enter the highest state with one's mind as a knower. I AM so I KNOW

As being the knower in the elixer of the joy of I-consciousness, one should be united to Siva only with bodha (wisdom mind, or an awareness without any thoughtconstruct).
Then one acquires the status of Siva (i.e., is identified with Siva), and the limited empirical self is liberated from the ocean of transmigratory form of existence.

When, O Mother, men renounce all mental activities and are poised in a pure state, being free from the bondage of the persuit of sense activities, then by thy grace is that supreme state realized at once which rains down the nectar of unlimited and unparalleled happiness.

Hi again Gary,
Long time since my last correspondence (only been nearly three years!) and a lot has changed since then. In August 2005 I travelled to St Petersburg to study at the Nabokov Museum, while there I managed to track down the Stray Dog and they actually let me down into the crypt where that very famous photograph was taken of Ouspensky et al. It was very surreal and quite moving to be alone in that space where so many amazing discussions and debates had taken place. I did of course complete your book and found it very helpful to my research and extremely informative. I also got my hands on "On the Spiritual in Art - Abstract Painting" and spent a summer voraciously reading both it and Heidegger's lectures on "The Essence of Truth". Most recently I have just completed Colin Wilson's "The Strange Life of P.D. Ouspensky" which was informative but left me feeling rather sad about it all - that is the whole Fourth Dimensional thing. My own research has continued outside the discipline of a PhD as I took time out after returning from Russia as I was not willing to let go of the 4th Dimensional aspects of it which I still believe to be crucially important; as to its importance towards what and how I am uncertain - let's just call it an instinct. I continue to champion the Fourth Dimension or perhaps more appropriately the possibility of a "multiplicity of dimensions" - again recalling Abbott's "Flatland". I must now read your book on Steiner as I have found myself thinking about him of late. Enough rambling for now; just felt it appropriate that I say thank you for corresponding with me so generously in the early stages of my research and that I believe your reading of Ouspensky and the importance of the early texts in particular to be both balanced and compassionate.
Sincere regards,
Mary Fox

I enjoyed the book very much. Along with other books it is a great aid to understand the behind-the-scenes activity of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff's work - it helps to be able to "know all sides" before making a decision.

I have some input that could be interesting to some. In New York here, I worked with a man who taught a form of the Work. My experience with him is quite the same as what Ouspensky seemed to feel and what others have come across. He said things that usually only irritated. There was no "winning" usually. If I thought one thing and was sure of it, soon he would say it wasn't so in some form or other. Everything was always rather dour. No one in the small group was ever very happy (One thing Luba Gurdjieff commented on in her book that life with G was alive, vital and had great color - with plenty of humor and jokes - and that those that carried on his work seemed to fall into somber, solemn, and negative meetings). My meetings were sessions of somber questions, of fear, and with ridicule awaiting. Etc, etc. For me the net effect was learned-helplessness. I learned to sit there and say and do nothing. And of course then the teacher commented that I was too quiet and so on. I became more irritable in general and life was only more and more difficult. I left the group after about 5 years feeling I had gained absolutely nothing and wasted a lot.

I have a few ideas related to my expeiences and readings that allow me not to criticize or pass judgement too quickly - being helped also by this book by Mr. Lachman. One, Gurdjieff wrote that "one cannot count on a teacher that is at a high level." My teacher could do interesting things with energy. He could put someone in a state by giving a certain energy - albeit usually not enjoyable for me. I believe he must be at a fairly high level to do that. If he is at a high level, I can fully understand that the way I followed his teaching may be at fault - I may have been to trusting that everything he did was for my good and following everything he said to a "T" could be a fault. Gurdjieff was obviously at a much higher level - therefore, those that were quite low would not be able to get much from him - very few would be high enough to gain much. Like to the students who went to a high level Yogi, whom they inquired what they should do? The yogi replied "do nothing and love everyone." The yogi was in such a place that things far below him did not even exist anymore. He had transcended high, and could only respond "highly". To do otherwise would have meant a falling down for him. For the yogi was right that one should do nothing and just love everyone, but a lay student is incapable of being able to utilize that information correctly. Like us in todays world - we usually only want the highest teacher available - we want Ouspensky, Gurdjieff or Jesus Christ to teach us. But, Jesus' real teaching could only be had by those already at a high level. If we lay life over these analogies it becomes more clear. If we know nothing about math and want to learn - do we think we would learn the most from Einstein himself? Absolutely not. Einstein would be so far gone he would be able to teach us nothing. But, if you're math level was exceedingly high, Einstein could help you understand the entire universe!!

So I have three options as I see it - either my teacher was too high to help me, or he didn't know what he was doing, or I was helped and don't know it. A famous saying by him that I'm sure others can relate to is; if I would say to him, "I don't feel any benefit from your teaching -its not helping me at all." He would reply, "You aren't in a place to decide that." What can be said to that - its an unarguable response. I could see where a teacher's methods cannot be understood by a lower level - and with a normal, every day mind. So - we are left in the dark. If I go by results, which I did - I chose to leave. Maybe I was wrong or maybe not. I don't know.

There is one sentence from Gurdjieff that sticks in my head concerning Ouspensky; "Ouspensky did not understand the purpose of humiliation." Meaning of course, that G's methods had a purpose. Its obvious that to change the inner workings of our organism it must mean changing the way we view reality - of which humiliation is part of.

In regards to Beelzebub's: this teacher of mine had said that his teacher (who is deceased) had found and solved all seven Legominisms in Beelzebubs Tales. This is big statement with many implications as to G's level and purpose. For one it would mean he wasn't insane. Like the Christian Bible can only really be understood by those that know the language (as Nichol aptly wrote about), its understandable that Beelzebubs is written and understandable only on a high level.

Transcendence and higher consciousness, if we look at the Food diagram, are about energy. If we can conserve and create new energy we have new experience. Whatever methods aid in this process are good. If one has an alarm clock or self-remembering technique it momentarily stops the continuous outpouring - plugging a leak for a moment - that energy stays in and then we can feel its effects. Energy begets energy. Soon we are attracting higher energy towards us. There is nothing other than energy and vibration. If we work and are able to raise ourselves up, it is said God will begin to be able to meet us. If we remain "merde" He is unable to make a contact.

If we do this enough, eventually there will be enough accumulated energy that our momentary states will become more and more permanent. Etc ... and so on up to higher level.

-SK

You might be interested to learn that there will be an "Ouspensky Week in Ouspensky's House" exhibition at Colet House, London W14 9DA, 25 - 29 June 2007. This will be followed by a conference on 30 June & 1 July. Details from me (anthony@kedros.co.uk) or the Study Society (www.studysociety.com) (colethouse@clara.net).

Gary,

Thanks for writing the book on Ouspensky. It's taken me a long time to see the false and foolish sides of Gurdjieff's work. It's taken me even longer to find the useful parts of his teaching.

After reading Ouspensky's books for many years, me and my wife got involved in group work, but we gave it up after a year or two(fortunately). Despite leaving it, certain ideas of gurdjieff's work hold great appeal and value for me. Your book makes it very clear how people were (and are) mislead by the "work".

But, the real reason I'm writing is that I wonder if you have ever figured out what Gurdjieff was really hinting at? I wonder if you've ever seen the practical ideas for personal development that are hidden behind the external face of the teaching. It's clear to me that you've seen the false sides. But, have you seen the other side of it that isn't directly written about anywhere?? I've actually never seen a book written that explores what I'm talking about. In terms of new ideas, every book I've read on Gurdjieff, (no offense, but yours included), does little more than repeat his words and ideas. Your book offers a completely fresh perspective of course. But in terms of useful concepts, It seems to me that none of his followers ever figured out how to apply his teachings to themselves and to their lives. I see nothing more than blind acceptance and unthinking repetition in everyone's books. Nobody took the time to actively explore or question his ideas and how they can be used. So far as I can see, not a single direct student figured out how to develop himself in any way. The later generation of students did even less. So, in a sense, it's just like he says. Everyone has been asleep to what they were actually doing..They never understood a single thing he wrote. They never got a starting point from which to begin a useful way of studying his ideas.

The useful ideas I've found aren't my own (sad to say). I just happened to see the relationships and how various things fit together.

It started several years back, when I was trying to make sense of what I had read from the ideas of Moshe Feldenkrais and Krishnamurti. One of Feldenkrais' books, called Awareness thru Movement really got me thinking. It took awhile for me to see what was really going on in Feldenkrais' approach.

If you're interested in discussing any of this further, please email me. Your book was so very clear and helpful. It cleared up alot of things that I'd realized over many years. I figured I'd return the favor and pass on a fresh approach about Gurdjieff that you might find useful and interesting. Naturally, you should understand that I'm not connected to the Gurdjieff or any other form of group work as such things seem to me like a complete waste of time.

Thanks again,
Mark

Alot has been written and discussed regarding Mr. Gurdjieff's system of Ideas and his aim and purpose. One only has to read the first two pages of his book "All and Everything", describing the intent of the three series and how to read them. One has to believe that his "Friendly Advice" must be taken literally. One must give Mr. Gurdjieff his due regarding that, and disregard all else as speculation or fantasy.

George J. Mobille

Lachman is one of my browsing finds in the course of some Web search or other. I have been systematically going through the hits on him and discovering a gifted writer who manages to maintain his balance while studying subjects that over my life (now 66) drove me to and over the brink of "madness." We live in a reductionist era where simple-minded slogans tend to dominate the airwaves and popular culture. Thus my delight in finding a thinker able to articulate complex ideas in a clear and balanced fashion. Thanks Mr. L!

Jerry Bass

Dear George and Jerry,

I agree that one should take Gurdjieff's advice seriously, but then one has to decide what that means exactly. If it means jettisoning any criticism or question about his ideas, then I think that is advice most of won't be able to accept, because it would mean 'turning off' our minds, as the title of another book of mine has it (and yes, this is an unabashed plub for the book). I would think that Gurdjieff, and any serious teacher, would appreciate his readers thinking for themselves, which seems to me the holy grail of all esoteric, spiritual and emotional development.

And thank you very much Jerry, for your warm words of encouragment. I'm happy that my writings have proved useful to you, and it is always good to hear this - writers tend to spend a lot of time in their heads, and it is always a tonic to see that you are actually making contact with a reader. Just to let you know, my book on Rudolf Steiner will be out in early spring next year. I hope you check it out. All the best, Gary L

Thirty years ago I had an incredible experience by following the discipline detailed within Ouspensky's writings.

You mentioned Colin Wilson. His book Frankenstein's Castle is tremendous.

Like you, I've always felt that Gurdjieff's and Ouspensky's lives, in themselves, were just as facinating as their philosophical doctrine. It's refreshing to hear someone has written an in- depth look at this aspect of Ouspensky.

Great idea Gary! I look forward to reading your "work." Thank you in-advance from a kindred spirit.

Bill Wiltrack

It is fascinating to read both g and o and it is a fact that they complement each other.

Dr R.S.Prem

Gary
Thank you for your comments. This question is NOT for the 'board' - it's too personal. I am intrigued by the fact that you gave up the Work. What happened?
Eric

Dear Eric,
Well, I more or less answered that in an article I wrote for the Quest magazine some months ago, called "In the Work." I'm not sure if it is online or not, but if you ask for the issue number here and if it is available, I'm sure the people minding this message board can answer you. The short answer is that I was too interested in other ideas - I have an eclectic, synthetic (meaning I like to synthesize) mind and found myself having to restraint linking 'work' ideas to other people's, like Colin Wilson, or Steiner, or Jung. Hope this helps. Best, Gary

Dear Mr. Lachman,
In the bookstore last Sunday, I reached to grab a copy of the Ouspensky book and instead ended up with the "Secret History of Concsciousness". Go figure. Has this book been successful for you? Chapter after chapter I am blown away by the historical research, insights into consciousness, and the way you are building your case to conclusion. It seems like every time you list an historical figure who saw these different degrees in the evolution of consciousness and their reasons you also pointed out that most were not very successful in gaining acceptance of the ideas. But I can't understand why because it all seems so clear. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in any aspect of consciousness. Let me add that it is a very readable, humorous, educational and entertaining piece of writing as well! I wish you all the best, your ideas and research are much appreciated and certainly deserve a wide readership. Sorry if this is not the right forum to express this to you but I had no other idea how to get in touch with you. Best regards, Stephen p.s. I will of course get back to the PD Ouspensky book when finished and I am also looking forward to Steiner book.

Gary

Just to let you know that I have just completed your book, spending most of the 11 hours it takes to fly to Sydney to do so. A splendid work - congratulations! I enjoyed every minute of it...
I have been fascinated by these two giants and wondered if someone would ever write about their relationship. You did - and did so magnificently.

Regards
Eric

Dear Gary L

Thank you for your book, "The Secret History of Consciousness". I am looking forward to your work on Rudolph Steiner. There is some work I wish to do looking at the development of consciouness from the point of view of Man/Woman. As part of it I wish to synthesis the work of Pope John Paul II (the Good), Ken Wilber (the true) and Rudolph Steiner (the beautiful). I believe a key to the difficulties Spiritual Teachers and adepts experience at a certain stage in their work is (very simplistically put) how they relate to Marriage and family in the reality of their own lives. I wonder if you have covered Rudolph Steiner's marriages in your work? Have you seen the solo performance "Steiner Graffiti"? Performed by Christerpher Marcus (a lifelong student of Rudolph Steiner's work). It is truly worth seeing (www.circlexarts.com).

Very Best Regards
Frances Z

I just recently bought Ouspenski's book about the "new universe," (I am so busy and "hassled" that I cannot even recall the title!) and found all of what I was able to read very interesting.

We do need a "New Universe," because this one is beginning to "break down," and it's doing it in one "hell of a hurry." There are all sorts of tell signs, one of them being the near-total disorganization down in New Orleans. The near- fabled American efficiency was just not there and I will not blame a political party. In fact I will not "blame" anything or anyone, and only suggest that we had better start understanding what exactly we are doing, or very few of us will ever get to that "New Universe."

Thanks for reading this...

Bela L. Lebenyi
Butte, Montana

Dear Bela, Frances, Eric and Stephen,
Thank you all very much for your comments. I am glad that my work is clearly reaching the people who can best appreciate it. I'm also glad that it has prompted some of you, like Bela, to look into Ouspensky's own writing. I agree that we are in need of a new universe - or perhaps, slightly less extravagant, a new way of looking at the one we have. The natural disasters that seem to have become very frequent items on the television news (for those of us lucky enough not to live where they actually happen) seem to suggest - if that isn't too weak a way to put it - that our planet is going through some major changes. Unfortunately, too often the people in charge are short-sighted and lack vision. One hopes predictions of global warming and climate change may be wrong - but I doubt it. Let's hope more of us recognize the need for a new vision in order to meet the kind of crises this century will bring. Speaking of change, in my book, A Secret History of Consciousness - which Stephen has made some very warm remarks about - I discuss the work of the little known German philosopher jean Gebser. Gebser believed that throughout history, human consciousness has undergone sudden mutations, and that in our time we are facing the breakdown of the hyper-rationalism that characterizes the modern world. This is in preparation for the next stage, what Gebser calls 'integral consciousness'. Part of the transition involves some radical transformations, both of individuals and society. Gebser warned that it wouldn't be a picnic, and that much of what we recognize as the 'normal' world may topple. Let's hope that the switch can take place with as little suffering as possible. One of the thinkers I find very important is Rudolf Steiner. Like Ouspensky and Gebser, Steiner too is interested in changes in consciousness. Like Gebser he saw a period of stress and confusion, before the emergence of a new vision. It is important for people today, I think, to do whatever they can to be involved in this transformation consciously. My own work toward this is, in whatever little way I can, to present the ideas of people like Steiner, Ouspensky and others as clearly as possible, so that they can be communicated to anyone who is interested. Hearing from you all suggests that I might be doing just that. I'm glad my book helped you get through your flight, Eric. And, no I haven't seen Steiner Grafitti, Frances, but if I see that it is being performed here in LOndon, I will try to check it. Thanks again to you all for your perceptive comments.
Cheers, Gary L

I have just finshed 'In Search Of. . .' Thank you for being so wonderfully balanced. I have always had the same feeling when studying Gurdjieff as I do with Blavatsky. . .and after reading your book, I know why. (Conversely, I now feel the same regarding Ouspensky as with Steiner.) Please, Please, Please write something on Freemasonry so that Chrisopher Knight and Robert Lomas will stop! (I only ask that you interview some of us. . .there's so much that hasn't been said)

Todd Pipes

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your message. I'm glad you enjoyed my book. Oddly, I've just finished a book about Rudolf Steiner, which will be published, I think, in 2007. As with Ouspensky, I've tried to give a balanced account of his life and ideas; unfortunately, in much of what's written about Steiner (and practically all of these figures) he is considered either a saint or a madman. AS for Freemasonry - if you know an enterprising publisher who is keen on the idea, let me know!

All the best,
Gary L

This letter was sent to the Gurdjieff Journal in response to a review of In Search of P. D. Ouspensky that they published in their April 2005 issue.

Dear Gurdjieff Journal,

My publisher, Quest Books, recently sent me a copy of a review of my book, In Search of P.D. Ouspensky, by Henry Korman, published in your journal .

Many thanks for reviewing the book. However, the review itself seems more about Mr. Korman's ideas regarding the correct way to perceive Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, than my book. It also contains several inaccuracies.

Mr. Korman states that I was "involved with the Work in England for several years." I was not. I was involved in the work in New York and Los Angeles; nowhere in the book does it mention any involvement in England. Mr. Korman may want to get his facts straight before committing them to print.

Mr. Korman also states that in my choice of title, I "get it wrong," refering, I assume, to the sub-title "The Genius in the Shadow of Gurdjieff." This was chosen by the editor, not me, but I do think it rather presumptious of Mr. Korman to instruct me (and your readers) as to the 'real' meaning of genius. In any case, for my money, if anyone had genius, Ouspensky did, certainly in his early days.

Mr. Korman also rather condescendingly remarks that I "claim" to have read W.P. Paterson's Struggle of the Magicians, implying, I can only assume, that I didn't. For Mr. Korman's information, I reviewed Mr. Paterson's book for Gnosis magazine, Spring issue, 1996.

Mr. Korman also points out that I mistakenly refer to Tertium Organum as Ouspensky's first book. It was the book that made his reputation, was the first translated into English, and, although The Fourth Dimension preceded it, this was more in the way of a pamphlet. It was also the book that early on convinced me of Ouspensky's philosophical and literary brilliance. Mr. Korman may want to re-read Chapter Two, pp. 43-44, where I speak of The Fourth Dimension as a work that precedes Tertium Organum.

Mr. Korman also remarks that he finds my book a "polemic of a hurt person." Hurt by what and in what way, Mr. Korman fails to make clear, although, as he is a practitioner of the work ( I assume) I can only guess that he feels my failure to grasp its 'true' import must be the cause. If so, Mr. Korman is wrong. For one thing, I have been out of the work for more than twenty years and never had a moment's doubt about leaving it. No hurt there. For another, name calling is a very bad means of coming to terms with a book that presents a different opinion than one's own, although it is often a handy substitute for a real engagement with the ideas.

If the kind of right-thinking harangue and supercilious snipping that constitutes the bulk of Mr. Korman's review is your standard procedure, I am glad that the majority of people who will see it will be the converted. When ideology takes the place of real thinking, there's no room for argument.

Many thanks,
Gary Lachman

Gary Lachman's book is essentially predicated upon what we already knew about Gurdjieff and Ouspensky from primary and secondary sources. However, the book's very special character stems from the author's brilliant synthesis of all that material. One might criticize the book for its dependence on secondary sources. But such criticism badly misses the mark.

In my judgment, the real value of Mr. Lachman's work is that it humanizes the so-called "Fourth Way," something that has, heretofore, never been attempted, let alone achieved. The book is a lucid and fascinating demythologization of both an erstwhile practical "philosophy," and the concealed personalities behind it. It provides a badly needed hermeneutic by which one can decipher the manner in which the sly man behind the curtain plied his hypnogogic craft. The man I have in mind, of course, is Gurdjieff.

Lachman is absolutely correct to suggest that Ouspensky denied his better self, and neglected his own (in my estimation, more important) work, to pursue the idiosyncratic occultism of Gurdjieff. Lachman gives us a masterly depiction of the process of decline of Ouspensky the man, as well as his metaphysical thought-world. It is tragedy on an epic scale, and Lachman adeptly chronicles the monumental pathos without disfiguring the human beings involved in the drama.

Besides all the obvious merits of Lachman's book, allow me to touch on one that has been thus far neglected in any reviews of which I am aware. In fact, allow me to go so far as to suggest that it is the chief merit of this important book. That is, Gary Lachman opens a way for Fourth Way devotees to gain some objective insight into their precarious existential situation. He reveals the people and personalities behind the dogma and ritualism of the Fourth Way worldview. He exposes the true and concrete dimensions of the "work," not in any theoretical or purely historical manner, but as it actually was and is for the people bound to the "system." He lays bare the roots of Fourth Way "philosophy" in the person and personality of one man, G. I. Gurdjieff, and displays the catastrophic and appalling outcome of the imposition of one man's will upon that of another.

In my own meetings with remarkable wo/men over the years, I have never met a more rigid, mechanical, and unimaginative lot as those who are devotees of Beelzebub, the sly Monsieur Gurdjieff. This penetrating irony escapes no one except his very obedient disciples. Now there is an "escape manual" for them to consult. I cannot, of course, say that this was one of the intentions of the author in writing his book. My guess is that it must have at least been in the back of his mind. In any event, we owe Mr. Lachman a debt of gratitude for a very fine and interesting book, and furthermore, one with the potential to do great good.

— Michael J. Langlais, Ph.D.

I am writing in connection with Gary Lachman’s essay on P.D. Ouspensky published in the Spring 2005 edition of the Watkins Review which I have just received. I am a PhD post graduate student from Ireland and my research area includes the works of Vladimir Nabokov, P.D. Ouspensky and G.I. Gurdjieff. I found Lachman’s essay particularly interesting as I share the view that Ouspensky’s earlier works are in many ways more insightful than the later works which are too heavily overshadowed by Gurdjieff’s influence. I have read all of Ouspensky’s earlier works and much secondary reading on Ouspensky, including ‘Talks with a Devil’ (not mentioned), and am currently working my way through Gurdjieff’s ‘Beelzebub’s Tales to his Grandson’. I also find the split with Gurdjieff particularly curious and it continues to raise problems within my research area. I share Lachman’s position asking not why Ouspensky split with Gurdjieff, but how/why did he remain with him so long, although I do believe that there was much of value that Gurdjieff brought to Ouspensky as evidenced in ‘In Search of the Miraculous’.

I have recently presented a paper on ‘the Fourth Dimension in relation to Utopianism’ for the Ralahine Conference in Ireland, and am currently working on other papers on the Fourth Dimension; one ‘the Fourth Dimension, Dance, and Art as the only language fit to speak…’ for the Daghda Dance Company’s one month ‘think tank’ in association with the Project Art’s Centre in Dublin in May (details available on the internet). I have also just sent my proposal for a conference in Ohio in October focusing on the impact of the Bolshevik revolution on philosophy and the arts in Russia. The tentative title is ‘Nabokov, Ouspensky and the Fourth Dimension; Utopia or Dystopia?

Sincerely,
Mary Fox

Dear Mary,
Thank you for your interesting comments and for your warm words about my book - although I now wonder if you've read the book yet, or maybe just the Watkins article? I'm glad to see that Ouspensky is getting some of the attention he deserves for his influence on the early Russian avant garde, especially his work on the 4th dimension. Excuse me if you already know this, but there is much interesting material on this in a book published by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, "The Spiritual in Art: Abstract Painting 1890-1985." I find the whole pre-WWI early modern period in art and culture fascinating; there was an incredibly rich and diverse blend of different influences, from the occult to science to Nietzsche and socialism. I think Ouspensky's best work stems from this time, especially "Tertium Organum." Another important figure was Rudolf Steiner, whose ideas about art and consciousness influenced Kandinsky, Schoenberg and other early modernists. I'm currently working on a book about Steiner. You may also be interested in checking out another book of mine, "A Secret History of Consciousness," (Lindisfarne/Floris Books, 2003) which has material on Ouspensky and the 4th dimension, as well as on Charles Hinton, the late 19th early 20th century writer who popularized the idea of 'higher space'. Your papers sound fascinating. I'm especially interested in Nabokov because of his synesthesia, another idea that was very influential with the early moderns, like Scriabin. I'd like to hear more about the work you're doing, and good luck with the conference.

All the best,

Gary L

Dear Gary,

Thank you for your response; I received your book in the mail this morning and I am really looking forward to reading it. My main concern regarding the links that I am trying to establish between Nabokov and Ouspensky relate to Nabokov's well-publicized views regarding "quacks"; as he would put it. However, I do not regard Ouspensky as a "quack" and am amazed that he has so efficiently been erased from both the Russian philosophical and literary canons. My most recent paper was very favorably received and taken quite seriously as expressing a utopian impulse, although I was expecting the usual titters that seem to come when you mention the Fourth Dimension (I think most people expect a sort of early Star Trek experience to follow, complete with shaky sets and paper mache rocks!). My background before entering academia was in the fine arts so I suppose I may be more open to the idea of 'dimensionality'. To me Ouspensky's Fourth Dimension/conscious awareness is both utopian (in that it realizes that it is more 'aspirational' than 'realizable' per se); and reminds me of what Heidegger seemed to be referring to in his essay "on the origin of the work of Art" regarding "the lighting of the lighted". I wrote a paper on this last year linking Ouspensky, Heidegger and Huxley's "The Doors of Perception" (which also touches on the use of psychoactive drugs as a "doorway" to "lighting the lighted"). Regarding Steiner; I am currently reading Washington's "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" which I admit is very biased but does provide many of the names of those involved in the idea of dimensionality at the period relating to my research. The jury is out for me as yet regarding Blavatsky, I have written on Blavatsky in relation to Yeats and suggested that his mechanical nightingale in 'Sailing to Byzantium' might have been inspired by his visit to Blavatsky when he claimed that her cuckoo clock chimed for him (only to be later told by Blavatsky that it was broken), as far as I can remember, Yeats believed that spirits had spoken to him through it. Rudolf Steiner certainly interests me and I have been investigating the current debates regarding his racism and Nazism (although a friend of mine has sent her girls to a Steiner school in our area and I must say that the effect on them has been truly wonderful). What do you think about the 'racist' dimensions to Steiner's approach? I would be very interested to know as he only relates to my research from a peripheral perspective. I look forward to hearing from you again to continue the discussion with someone who actually "understands" what I am trying to express.

Sincerely,
Mary

Dear Mary,

Many thanks for your interesting remarks. A quick word about Steiner. I think the idea that Steiner was racist is only a result of his being active at a particular time in history when ideas about race were not automatically taken as evidence of racism. Steiner did have ideas about folk souls and the destinies of nations, but then, who didn't back then? I think one would be hard put to find any remarks of his own that were clearly intended to denigrate a particular race. As for his Nazism - of which this is the first I hear - the first Goetheanum (I'm sure you know the building I'm talking about) was burned down, and many suspect that proto-Nazi groups were responsible. He was also a target for them at his talks, and on at least one occasion, just missed having a shot gun go off in his face. He was also accused of being a Jew by right-wing nationalist groups. So I'm not that impressed by any accusations of his being racist or a Nazi.

As for Peter Washington's book, I found it delightful. As soon as I realized he had his tongue firmly in his cheek, I didn't resist and simply enjoyed the book. I took a similar approach in an earlier book of mine about the 1960s, Turn Off Your Mind. I find Blavatsky fascinating as a character, and give her the benefit of the doubt, seeing the people like Yeats were smitten, although in general I shy from systems and take all of this stuff with several grains of salt.

I enjoyed your remark about Heidegger's essay, which I read many years ago and enjoyed (if you can do such a thing with Heidegger);it is one of the most important and insightful pieces of his work. I can see the connection with Huxley, and think there may be a link between them through their interest in Zen and Eckhart's 'istigkeit'. My own background is in aesthetics as well, and I find Heidegger's essays on poetry his most rewarding work.

I don't know how utopian my views are - not because of any pessimism, but in view of the fact that most utopian ideas, when put into practice, result in bad politics - but I do see the link between this and ideas about the 4th dimension. What I find important about Ouspensky in this light, and which I think I point out in my book, is that it opens up the idea of the 4th dimension to include our notions of 'meaning' and 'significance', arguing that they are real realities, which exist in what he calls a 4th dimension, and can't be reduced to either physical entities (like atoms) or merely subjective phenomena. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about the book and hope you enjoy it.

All the best,
Gary

Dear Gary,

Thank you for your comments. I realised after sending my last mail that I had omitted a vital comma, after racism, and before Nazism. I did not mean to imply that Steiner was a Nazi; what I had come across regarding Steiner was to do with the Thule society's incorporation of his elaboration of Blavatsky's 'root race' doctrine. I have also read that Hitler was not that impressed with this move by the Thule society, as his focus was on the Jews in particular, so apologies for that error.

I also have to say that I am enjoying Washington's book and do realise that his tongue is firmly within his cheek; but from the perspective of hard research I have to be careful not to swallow his text whole. As a character in her own right I find Blavatsky hilarious, a genius of invention/reinvention..., in fact rather like a character in one of Nabokov's novels; that is if Washington's account of her is in any way accurate, I'm sure that you would be better able to tell than me. I know that Ouspensky quotes from 'Isis Unveiled' and 'The Secret Doctrine' in his 'Tertium Organum'; but I also seem to recall Reyner claiming that when Ouspensky was actually invited to the upper level of the HQ of the Theosophical society, he was rather unimpressed. Also given what Ouspensky has written on mystic 'quacks' (my word) I can only imagine that Reyner was correct (no doubt I will find out more in your book - possibly in tonight's reading).

Regarding utopianism; my reading of the 4th dimension as expressing a utopian impulse rests entirely in the knowledge that it can only be aspirational, once realised it degenerates into a dystopia. In this light, I think that Ouspensky's best work is his earliest because it is purely philosophical and theoretical. I would have reservations about Gurdjieff's enforcing of 'the work'(but this is purely 'my' opinion). My preference for Ouspensky rests largely on this distinction. Frank Pinder felt that Ouspensky's weakness was that he was in the end 'a practical philosopher' who resisted putting the theory into practice (I have also noted that you mention Pinder in your early chapters). I believe that this was Ouspensky's strength and wonder whether he might be part of the philosophical canon now had he never forged his alliance with Gurdjieff.

A world which realises the existence of the 4th dimension as 'conscious awareness', (in my reading of Ouspensky; I refer particularly to the passage in Tertium Organum, where Ouspensky advocates that we begin to view the world, not from over here, but from over there), remains utopian and in many ways is echoed in Richard Rorty's 'liberal ironist seeking a final vocabulary' as evidenced in, 'Private irony and liberal hope', which is found in Rorty's excellent, Contingency, Irony, and solidarity (which at the moment is the nearest thing to a bible I accept; but again is never to be swallowed whole!). I don't know whether you have read this or not, but I would highly recommend it. Like Ouspensky and Nabokov, Rorty recognises that much of man's folly rests with his misconstrued sense of 'meaning', and with his lack of solidarity, but for Rorty understanding and solidarity must begin with the self (sound familiar?). I too take all 'systems' with a large dose of salt but I accept the need to continue to strive 'beyond' the here and now; which is not to be 'absent' as Gurdjieff would have it (I am not advocating living in the future), but to possibly be 'present' in a way that defies our 'understanding' of time (am I entering the 4th dimension?).

One of the best novels to describe the 4th dimension and to my mind the utopian dimensions inherent within, is Edwin Abbott's 'Flatland'. I think that it was Reyner who suggested that Ouspensky might have been in some way influenced by this novel. Flatland most definitely evokes much that Ouspensky proposes regarding time, motion and space in 'Tertium Organum'.

Incidentally, I have begun your book and am thoroughly enjoying it.

Most Sincerely,
Mary

Dear Mary,

Many thanks again for your stimulating remarks. If you want a more pro-Blavatsky book, see Sylvia Cranston's H.P.B.: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, published by Tarcher/Putnam in 1993. It's a rather solemn tome at times, but full of an amazing amount of research. My own feeling on HPB and many other 'masters' (or mistresses) is that I've been reading about them for so long that at this point, I'm able to absorb practically all of the criticism about them, acknowledge its value, and still enjoy their exploits. Having said that, it's clear, I think, that HPB was an important figure in the history of ideas - among other things, she's responsible for the love affair with the mystic east that we westerners have been involved in for more than a century now.She was also pretty much the first person to voice a sustained and strong argument (or complaint) against Darwinism - I think she beat Samuel Butler's early anti-Darwin attacks by a few months. And she also was an early proponent of what today we call multi-faith sensibility. And whatever we may think of 'hidden masters' and Mahatmas, she certainly provided thousands of individuals with some sort of response to the debilitating materialism and so-called rationalism that has dominated our modern culture now for at least two centuries. So whether she was a rogue or not is an interesting but not terribly important question.

Yes, I read Flatland ages ago. You may also find some of Charles Hinton's books worth checking out. If you've read Tertium Organum you'll know that Ouspensky got a lot from him. He's a bit dated now, but Hinton Cubes and other 4 D party toys were the rage a century ago. I'm not sure if he predates Abbot, but they were writing around the same time. Hinton certainly influenced H.G. Wells' The Time Machine. If you're interested, I have a section on Hinton (and also on Ouspensky) in my book A Secret History of Consciousness.

I have to say I haven't read Rorty in years - when I was doing my philosophy degree (too many moons ago) he was the rage. I'll have to check him out.

---

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your remarks about the book, which I had the great pleasure of seeing on amazon.com. While I didn't plan on writing an 'escape manual', I hope that the book leads anyone involved or just interested in 'the work' to consider it from a different angle. My main point was to unravel what had been a rather complicated knot, for me at least, the problem of Ouspensky's whole relationship with Gurdjieff. I suspect that some people did profit by their involvement, but that for others it was (and perhaps is) a mistake. For any of these, I hope reading my book may help them come to a decision that may be difficult to make. Ouspensky's early work meant (and means) a great deal to me, and I am happy I had the opportunity to write about him. It is difficult to accept the failings of people you admire, but I like to think that Ouspensky would have approved of the book. It cost me a great effort to write it, and to finally come to some closure on the question of Gurdjieff. If it is of help to others in doing the same, then the effort was worth it.

— Gary

Gary,

The book was a wonderful recap of the George and Peter Principle: familiariry breeds contemptuous philosophers. Enjoyed it very much, actually... but! (...and I think you'll enjoy this "pause") -It needs a continuation... in short, "more please"! There was so much left unsaid to make the connection today with those of us who would like to know where the "work" has lead to in 2005 and (imagination not withstanding) where it has the potential to lead to. Having attended a fourth way school my self, I found one nugget of a clue dropped as to how to get "there". The clue was that it is through the Emotional Centre. And yes, leaving the school for similar reasons as yourself was eventually cathartic but I realized that we don't really leave per se. Because as Trinity says in the Matrix, "It's the question that nags us...", and somehow or other we continue to "work".. You've put together an intelligent book and now you have an audience that is "paying attention" -so why not shear some sheep and start working on the next one: "IN THE WORK -BUT NOT OF IT". Who knows, you may even get Madonna to buy a copy.

— Les

Dear Les,
Thank you very much for the encouraging words. I am currently working on a new book, a study of Rudolf Steiner. (Perhaps, gods willing, I'll wind up taking on all the major spiritual figures!) As with Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, I find much of great value in Steiner, but also quite a bit that demands serious questioning. You'll have to wait a year or so to find out what happens. In the meantime, you may be interested in checking out an earlier book of mine, A Secret History of Consciousness (Lindisfarne, 2003). It covers people like Ouspensky and Steiner, but also Bergson, William James, Jean Gebser, Orage, Colin Wilson, and quite a few others. I've also been doing a lot of research on Swedenborg lately.
I think you're right, that we may leave the 'work', but it doesn't leave us. I imagine I find all of the very good work done by Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Steiner and others as sign posts or actual maps of the territory, but its up to us what direction we walk in and where we aim to arrive.
As to where the work is today - good question. I do have an idea for a continuation along the lines of the Secret History. There I briefly talk about what I call the Goldilocks Principle, or the art of getting it 'just right'. So much of the work in developing consciousness - or actually of just living: 'consciousness' by itself seems too abstract for me these days - involves striking a creative balance between two opposites. In a general sense we can think of what happens when the right and left brains cooperate, rather than interfere with each other. Clearly this isn't anything new, and the ancients were aware of this when they first intuited something like the yin-yang symbol. But understanding it intellectually and actually living it are, we know, two different things. So I'd like to develop this idea at some point. It would be helpful to find a publisher interested in this project. And by the way, if you can get a copy of my book to Madonna, I'd be much obliged.

All the best, Gary

Gary:

Thank you for replying to my missive. I am planning to be in London for a week in April and would like to meet with people who study Nicoll's books. When I have come there in the past I've never been able to find anyone. Do you know of anyone in that vacinity I could talk to? Also, I agree with your judgment on Tertium Organum. I have read it a number of times and use it for source material when I lecture on things of the spirit. Thanks for you work

— Ron Lancaster

Dear Andrew:
Many thanks for mentioning the material on Ouspensky that you suggest I missed. I did see the Bob Hunter bio and the Bridge issues, but in actual fact, I don't really consider my book a straight forward biography. It is an investigation into the relationship between Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Again, I am aware of the archive at Yale and I did receive some material from them. My main aim was to write an interesting, readable book, approaching the subject in a new, critical way, which I believe I accomplished. It is perhaps true that a diligent researcher could uncover some more facts that have yet to see print, but I don't believe they would alter the main outlines of the story, and telling that was my central aim.

Dear Ron:
Sadly I'm not in contact with any one involved in Nicoll's work. Have you tried a Google search? It may be worth while also to search for the executors of Beryl Pogson's estate. I don't have any details about them, but I believe they still publish some of Nicoll or Beryl Pogson's work. It's possible they might have a lead for you.

All the best to you both

— Gary Lachman

Dear Gary,

Thanks for your reply. What I mean is that your research doesn't go beyond published materials. There are still people alive today who knew Ouspensky, who could be interviewed. There is an extensive collection of unpublished materials at Yale. There is at least one unpublished memoir of Ouspensky. (And you did miss some of the material from the last few years like Bob Hunter's biography, Ouspensky: Pioneer of the Fourth Way, and the interesting accounts found in The Bridge 12 and 14, or William segal's brief but appreciative account of Ouspensky's years in the USA.) Ouspensky wrote an early novel about Egypt; he translated The Way of a Pilgrim into English; Rodney Collin wrote an intimate journal of Ouspensky's last months. And the material from Ouspensky's meetings tends to be brushed away. I appreciated your account of Ouspensky's influence on the Russian avant-garde, and I enjoyed the book considerably, as I previously indicated, but I was disappointed by the lack of new i nformation. as I mentioned, this is partly the selfish complaint of another writer, not that of a reader.

Best Wishes,
— Andrew Phillip Smith

Dear Andrew and Ron,

Andrew: I have to say I feel a bit unhappy about your remark that there is no 'original research' in my book. What exactly does that mean? Should I have found out what color socks Ouspensky wore on a particular day? Also, as I make clear in my introduction and throughout the book, I am approaching the whole Gurdjieff/Ouspensky story from an angle that no other writer has approached.That alone strikes me as an 'original' addition to the canon. I don't think anyone else has taken up his case in the way I have. Also, as I say in the book, any new material would require a. a command of Russian, and b. an opportunity to travel to Russia. As I do not possess a. nor did the advance I received from my publisher make possible b., I made do with what I could work with. The material on Ouspensky's influence on the Russian avant garde has yet to appear in any of the 4th way works. I could go on, but I risk sounding peevish.


Ron: Thank you for your kind comments on my book. I am very glad you enjoyed it. I, too, have come away from my experience of both G and O and the work with a different appreciation. I think Nicoll is an excellent avenue through whom to approach working on oneself. It is a shame that Ouspensky had him 'go away'. He was the only one with whom O had a warm relationship, and it may have saved him the anguish of his later years if he had stayed in close contact. Alas, ours is not to alter the past (for all O's beliefs to the contrary)but to try to understand it. Personally, I think O's early (Tertium Organum) is an incomparable introduction to the unactualized possibilities of human consciousness.

All the best,
— Gary L

Dear Gary:

I certainly enjoyed your book, which I just finished today. I was a member of the Fellowship of Friends for a number of years in the 70's & 80's and Gurdjieff & Ouspensky were hero's of the highest order, especially Ouspensky. I now have a different picture of both of these men who seems to have squandered their opportunities with all of their negativity toward one another and their students. They seemed mean-spirited, vain, and powerful. I have been doing the Work on my own for many years and do not need such examples. Nicoll seems more a model for that which I wish to accomplish.

Yours truly,
— Ron Lancaster

Gary,

I am working on a biography of Rodney Collin (see http://www.bardic-press.com/rcollin/collinindex.htm). I would enjoy discussing him with you. I am currently reading your book. Wonderfully written, and it's a refreshing contrast to Patterson's polemics. My main criticism of the book (and it's a selfish one) is that (with a few exceptions) you have more or less used all of the published material on Ouspensky, but have added no original research. So you have provided no extra material for future writers on Ouspensky (like me), but any further biographies on Ouspensky would now need to add a substantial amount of unpublished material and original research to justify their existence. Anyway, please contact me at andrew@bardic-press.com

Best Wishes,
— Andrew Phillip Smith

One question that troubles me:
Assuming Ouspensky reached a higher consciousness, would he still have reached the same state of man number 7 without meeting Gurdieff and the introduction to the "Fourth Way?" Please let me know what your thoughts are.

Thank you,
— Wolfgang

Dear Wolfgang,

I'm not sure that Ouspensky reached the level of 'man number 7', or even if that way of speaking of degrees of consciousness is helpful. Clearly his time with Gurdjieff was the central experience of his life, and so was crucial to his development. But I do believe that he had already had many powerful insights into the higher regions of consciousness before he met Gurdjieff. If you read his chapter "Experimental Mysticism" in New Model of the Universe, you will see what I mean. I'm not sure if Gurdjieff himself ever had experiences of the sort Ouspensky describes in thsi chapter. But as he wrote this before he met Gurdjieff, it is, for me at least, good evidence that he had made significant forays into the higher realms on his own.

— Gary Lachman

I'm very glad that Quest Books has set up this message board for people to discuss my new book, In Search of P.D. Ouspensky. I've been fascinated with Ouspensky's life and work ever since I first read his book Tertium Organum years ago, in the late 1970s. Along with the ideas about higher consciousness, other dimensions, and the mysteries of time, I was also struck by the figure of the romantic philosopher, a brilliant intellect and sharply critical mind that was nevertheless obsessed with deep questions about life, fate and the universe. I soon read A New Model of the Universe and was once again impressed. And I then went on to In Search of the Miraculous.

Here, along with the radically new ideas that Ouspensky was introduced to by his teacher, Gurdjieff, I was also taken with the drama emerging between these two remarkable men. Set against the back drop of WWI, the Russian Revolution and a thrilling trek across a war-torn country, the relationship between Gurdjieff and Ouspensky seemed to me the stuff of myth. The dynamic between these two powerful figures, and the exotic and often dangerous landscapes they moved through, seemed to me almost too perfect, as if they were characters in a great spiritual adventure novel. I knew that one day I would have to tell their story. Now, many years later, I have.

But along with the story of their relationship, I was also deeply impressed by the ideas, and, eventually, I found myself, like Ouspensky, seeking out a school where I could study them first hand. Although my 'quest' was on a much smaller scale than Ouspensky' s, I was successful, and for some time, in both New York and Los Angeles, I was involved in the Gurdjieff 'work'.

As I say in my book, I count the time I spent studying Gurdjieff's ideas well spent, and some of my moments of deepest insight came while I was involved in the work. But, again like Ouspensky, I eventually felt that, at least for me, something was not quite right, and I left the work, to pursue other areas and approaches to the questions that still obsess me. However, I found myself coming back again and again to Ouspensky's early work, to Tertium Organum and the other writing he did before he met Gurdjieff. It was clear that between that time, and the years he spent as a teacher of the work, something had changed in him. A question began to trouble me: what happened to turn Ouspensky from an optimistic romantic philosopher, enthusiastic about the possibility of transformng consciousness, into, it seemed to me, a much more pessimistic, critical and rather constrained teacher of a very austere system. I thought about this on and off for many years, and when the opportunity came to explore this mystery in detail, I was eager to do it. Hence my book.

Now I'm curious about how other people may feel about this, and am interested in hearing what they might have to say.

— Gary Lachman

Gary Lachman has written a facinating study of the intellectual and spiritual life of the Russian P.D. Ouspensky and his relation with his teacher and co-worker G.I. Gurdjieff. The book is very well written with elements of a Russian novel, not unlike Ouspensky's own novel The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin (London: Arkana, 1987).

The biography is basically a case study, and Gary Lachman does not generalize. However, there is a broader issue that arises from the book and that merits discussion among readers: the relation between teacher and student - knowing when it is time to 'graduate' - to bless the teacher for what he has brought but being ready to move on.

Lachman quotes a line from Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra "One repays a teacher badly if one remains only a pupil".

Ouspensky had probably gotten all he could from Gurdjieff during the years they were together in Russia just before the 1917 Revolution obliged them to leave Russia for the West. Although Ouspensky's record of Gurdjieff's teaching In Search of the Miraculous (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983) was only published after Ouspensky's death in 1947, he had written it much earlier as he was being introduced to Gurdjieff's approach. By 1924 Ouspensky no longer saw Gurdjieff. Ouspensky could make the distiction between the teacher and the approach, yet he remained in a rejection/dependence relation to Gurdjieff.

Moving on and creating a new framework is always difficult, and Ouspensky is not alone. Moving on, this process of 'graduation' remains a key issue for all those who have had an exclusive relation to a teacher or spiritual movement. There is an oft-quoted Indian proverb "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." Perhaps we now need to look at a new proverb "When the student is ready, the teacher will disappear."

— Rene Wadlow