In Search of the Miraculous (P.D. Ouspensky)
Eckhart-Tolle Level "Dharma"
[My two-star Amazon review  (February 21, 2013) of  In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching by P.D. Ouspensky.]
I first read In Search of the Miraculous forty years ago, when I was just beginning my "Journey to the East." And just for fun, I decided to get another copy--my original one is long gone--and review it from my perspective as a long-time serious student of mysticism and occultism. In the four decade interval between my two readings, I've devoted myself to studying, practicing, and teaching original, Zen and Tibetan Buddhism; Hindu Raja, Jnana, and Tantra yoga; Christian Hermeticsm; the Kabbalah (and Qabala); and the teachings of J. Krishnamurti and Adi Da. I have also practiced astrology professionally, and worked with the I Ching and Tarot.
I could write a book deconstructing Gurdjieff's teachings (as I have Eckhart Tolle's), but because these teachings are not mainstream New Age popular, it wouldn't be worth my time and effort. In this review, I will have to limit my critique to specific aspects of Gurdjieff's teachings.
The Gurdjieff teaching is essentially a blend of three approaches to "understanding"--1) cosmological, 2) psychological, and 3) gnostic. I'll briefly consider each.
1) An overwhelming proportion of the book focuses on cosmology; and this perhaps reflects Ouspensky's extreme interest in the subject. Unfortunately, much of Gurdjieff's cosmology is pure bullcrap, yet he spits it out as if it were gospel truth rather than just far-out speculative theory. His description of the moon, for example, is a hoot: "For instance, the evolution of humanity beyond a certain point, or to speak more correctly, above a certain percentage, would be fatal for the moon. The moon at present feeds on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is part of organic life; this means that humanity is food for the moon. If all men were to become too intelligent, they would not want to be eaten by the moon...The moon is growing and developing, and at some time it will, possibly attain the same level as the earth. Then, near it, a new moon will appear and the earth will become their sun." Here's another quick example of more Gurdjieff bullcrap: "On the earth we are very far removed from the will of the Absolute; we are separated from it by forty-eight orders of mechanical laws." Yeah, right. And there is plenty more nonsense in the Gurdjieff cosmological system. If you are interested in profound spiritual cosmology, I suggest you turn your attention to Hindu Kashmir Shaivism.
2) If you read Eckhart Tolle, you'll see that he got quite a bit of his muddle-brained psycho-babble from Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff says, "Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the result of external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does thinks, feels--all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything." Tolle, sounding like he's channeling Gurdjieff, emphasizes that "the human mind is not at all creative." If you're interesting in seeing Gurdjieff's and Tolle's "Skinnerian"-type arguments eviscerated, read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."
Gurdjieff states that the external influence controlling man's behavior on both an individual and mass scale is the planets (including the sun and moon). If the planets control, or dramatically influence, human behavior, then it would seem that astrology would be the most important occult art to study. But Gurdjieff, instead of teaching his students the art and science of astrology, fills their minds with endless cosmological mumbo-jumbo.
3) Gurdjieff calls his gnostic work the "The Fourth Way," contrasting it with the three lesser ways of, respectively, the Fakir, the Monk, and the Yogi. Again, this is a hoot, utterly farcical to anyone deep and eclectically into the mystery traditions. What Gurdjieff teaches is yoga, is Buddhism. And innumerable monks have practiced it. First he emphasizes self-remembrance or mindfulness relative to every aspect of one's being. This is the same as Buddhist Vipassana meditation, which, unlike Gurdjieff's superficial Dharma, goes into great detail regarding the practice. And Tibetan Dzogchen, which exceeds Vipassana, is a quantum leap above his shallow meditation instuctions. Second, Gurdjieff talks about the multiple false `I's that prevent a man from realizing his true transcendental `I," or Self. Hindu Advaita Vedanta, particularly Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), teaches, through Self-enquiry, to undermine the spurious `I,'s, (really I-thoughts and not separate selves of one's being) and realize the indivisible `I,' or transcendental Self, the Heart. The Buddha also taught this, telling his monks to disidentify from every form, feeling, perception, sensation, and act of attention, in order to realize Nirvana, one's Buddha-nature.
Gurdjieff is bereft of esotericism relative to the en-Light-enment process. For example, he is clueless about Kundalini, calling it the "power of imagination, the power of fantasy, which takes the place of a real function." Contrast this with Ramana's Maharshi, India's foremost twentieth-century guru, who says Kundlalini is just another name for the Self. (In other words, it is the dynamic Energy, or Spirit-power, that accompanies the awakening, or freeing, of one's consciousness.
Gurdjieff is also lacking when it comes to Jesus' teachings. He says, "The Last Supper was magical ceremony similar to `blood-brotherhood' for establishing a connection between astral bodies." Actually, it was a demonstration of the esoteric Eucharist, with the pouring of the wine into the Holy Chalice implying that a true Christian disciple must empty (or impoverish) himself in order to receive the Holy Spirit, the descending, or higher, Kundalini. Strictly speaking, Gurdjieff's teachings cannot be classified as "spiritual," because they have nothing to say about Spirit (or Shakti, or Divine Power) in the en-Light-enment, or Self-awakening, process.
A couple of final points: Gurdjieff emphasizes the need for an organization or group to awaken. He says, "Nothing can be achieved without an organization." Nonsense. Many of the greatest sages awoke sans an organization. A few examples are the Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, and J. Krishnamurti. And the gnostic teachings of these masters are superior to Gurdjieff's. If you're interested in mystical texts that exceed this one, check out my reviews at Amazon.com (and keep checking them out, because I am continually adding new ones).
[My two-star Amazon review  (February 21, 2013) of  In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching by P.D. Ouspensky.]
I first read In Search of the Miraculous forty years ago, when I was just beginning my "Journey to the East." And just for fun, I decided to get another copy--my original one is long gone--and review it from my perspective as a long-time serious student of mysticism and occultism. In the four decade interval between my two readings, I've devoted myself to studying, practicing, and teaching original, Zen and Tibetan Buddhism; Hindu Raja, Jnana, and Tantra yoga; Christian Hermeticsm; the Kabbalah (and Qabala); and the teachings of J. Krishnamurti and Adi Da. I have also practiced astrology professionally, and worked with the I Ching and Tarot.
I could write a book deconstructing Gurdjieff's teachings (as I have Eckhart Tolle's), but because these teachings are not mainstream New Age popular, it wouldn't be worth my time and effort. In this review, I will have to limit my critique to specific aspects of Gurdjieff's teachings.
The Gurdjieff teaching is essentially a blend of three approaches to "understanding"--1) cosmological, 2) psychological, and 3) gnostic. I'll briefly consider each.
1) An overwhelming proportion of the book focuses on cosmology; and this perhaps reflects Ouspensky's extreme interest in the subject. Unfortunately, much of Gurdjieff's cosmology is pure bullcrap, yet he spits it out as if it were gospel truth rather than just far-out speculative theory. His description of the moon, for example, is a hoot: "For instance, the evolution of humanity beyond a certain point, or to speak more correctly, above a certain percentage, would be fatal for the moon. The moon at present feeds on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is part of organic life; this means that humanity is food for the moon. If all men were to become too intelligent, they would not want to be eaten by the moon...The moon is growing and developing, and at some time it will, possibly attain the same level as the earth. Then, near it, a new moon will appear and the earth will become their sun." Here's another quick example of more Gurdjieff bullcrap: "On the earth we are very far removed from the will of the Absolute; we are separated from it by forty-eight orders of mechanical laws." Yeah, right. And there is plenty more nonsense in the Gurdjieff cosmological system. If you are interested in profound spiritual cosmology, I suggest you turn your attention to Hindu Kashmir Shaivism.
2) If you read Eckhart Tolle, you'll see that he got quite a bit of his muddle-brained psycho-babble from Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff says, "Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the result of external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does thinks, feels--all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything." Tolle, sounding like he's channeling Gurdjieff, emphasizes that "the human mind is not at all creative." If you're interesting in seeing Gurdjieff's and Tolle's "Skinnerian"-type arguments eviscerated, read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."
Gurdjieff states that the external influence controlling man's behavior on both an individual and mass scale is the planets (including the sun and moon). If the planets control, or dramatically influence, human behavior, then it would seem that astrology would be the most important occult art to study. But Gurdjieff, instead of teaching his students the art and science of astrology, fills their minds with endless cosmological mumbo-jumbo.
3) Gurdjieff calls his gnostic work the "The Fourth Way," contrasting it with the three lesser ways of, respectively, the Fakir, the Monk, and the Yogi. Again, this is a hoot, utterly farcical to anyone deep and eclectically into the mystery traditions. What Gurdjieff teaches is yoga, is Buddhism. And innumerable monks have practiced it. First he emphasizes self-remembrance or mindfulness relative to every aspect of one's being. This is the same as Buddhist Vipassana meditation, which, unlike Gurdjieff's superficial Dharma, goes into great detail regarding the practice. And Tibetan Dzogchen, which exceeds Vipassana, is a quantum leap above his shallow meditation instuctions. Second, Gurdjieff talks about the multiple false `I's that prevent a man from realizing his true transcendental `I," or Self. Hindu Advaita Vedanta, particularly Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), teaches, through Self-enquiry, to undermine the spurious `I,'s, (really I-thoughts and not separate selves of one's being) and realize the indivisible `I,' or transcendental Self, the Heart. The Buddha also taught this, telling his monks to disidentify from every form, feeling, perception, sensation, and act of attention, in order to realize Nirvana, one's Buddha-nature.
Gurdjieff is bereft of esotericism relative to the en-Light-enment process. For example, he is clueless about Kundalini, calling it the "power of imagination, the power of fantasy, which takes the place of a real function." Contrast this with Ramana's Maharshi, India's foremost twentieth-century guru, who says Kundlalini is just another name for the Self. (In other words, it is the dynamic Energy, or Spirit-power, that accompanies the awakening, or freeing, of one's consciousness.
Gurdjieff is also lacking when it comes to Jesus' teachings. He says, "The Last Supper was magical ceremony similar to `blood-brotherhood' for establishing a connection between astral bodies." Actually, it was a demonstration of the esoteric Eucharist, with the pouring of the wine into the Holy Chalice implying that a true Christian disciple must empty (or impoverish) himself in order to receive the Holy Spirit, the descending, or higher, Kundalini. Strictly speaking, Gurdjieff's teachings cannot be classified as "spiritual," because they have nothing to say about Spirit (or Shakti, or Divine Power) in the en-Light-enment, or Self-awakening, process.
A couple of final points: Gurdjieff emphasizes the need for an organization or group to awaken. He says, "Nothing can be achieved without an organization." Nonsense. Many of the greatest sages awoke sans an organization. A few examples are the Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, and J. Krishnamurti. And the gnostic teachings of these masters are superior to Gurdjieff's. If you're interested in mystical texts that exceed this one, check out my reviews at Amazon.com (and keep checking them out, because I am continually adding new ones).
