| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 | Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans?
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45
 United States
7/27/2005 1:50 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
 |
| OPie
User ID: 45
United States
7/27/2005 1:51 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Lots of new glp members in the last 6 or 7 days ...
 |
| Sol Invictus
User ID: 3336
 Denmark
7/27/2005 2:17 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: From my POV, as late December 2001, if they had actually just corrected their lies, no need to apologize, I would have backed off. But, rather than just cutting their losses, they cranked it up again after they moved to France. As Andy said, it is now a matter of principle, and I´ll be on it as long as it takes to get justice...
VB
***
Fair enough, again. Lol, I can see why it´s a matter of principle to all involved of course ;) Like I said on one of the first pages, when I read the (probably already slanted) version of the Cass vs VB/JW thing, I did think that you had the "moral/mature highground" and that they were being completely unreasonable.
As for your Cass group censorship comment, my impression is that it´s censored so heavily because they don´t want personality issues there, they only want to discuss the "facts." While that may be a great scientific approach to solving an equation or building a machine, it´s a really, really bad approach for personal development - which really is what the group was supposed to be about in the first place!
Judging on how they got butchered here and then left in a hurry, I´d say that they´re probably really booksmart people, but that they are well... to be blunt, social retards who think their book learning and metaphysical theories are superior to real life experiences.
I´m glad I went through the book learning phase for a couple of years, but I stopped when I realize it could only take me so far. I can´t "unlearn" what´s in my head anymore than I could "unlearn" the english language, but at a certain point you need to go out and experience what works and what doesn´t - and then stop believing what´s not useful, or even counterproductive !
If the Cass group continues to "stay the course", I think it´s going to end badly. If it does end badly, I guess I´ll just have to chalk it up as yet another example of "the self destructive nature of the human psyche" :P I´m just surprised this happened to the one site that I actually thought was relatively enlightened for a long time, but hey, lesson learned, etc. |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
United States
7/27/2005 2:28 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Infinitea seems like a "true Believer" because she continues to want to believe, in the Cs, in Tobias or whom ever.
No, Vincent, you´ve got me wrong. I am not
a "follower" or "true believer." I pick and
choose from a variety of sources, channeled and not, taking what I can use and leaving the rest. That has always seemed to me the mmost sensible course. I like to play
with ideas. I am not "defending" the C´s when,
for example, I find some constructive reason for why they made a "wrong" prediction. I am simply
looking to my OWN process of discerning truth,
which takes many a winding path. I submit that
from a larger perspective, this whole experience
with Laura and the C´s serves everyone involved
in one way or another. Which is not to say you should not express your feelings of being wronged, pursue justice, etc. By all means, assert yourself and your own power in this situation.
It would be nice if you would stop pigeonholing me as some kind of cultist just because I don´t dismiss everything that has come through in the C´s material, or the whole field of channeling, as bunkum.
But I know you´re going to think what you want about me, and as for me, I´ll keep on expressing myself in whatever way I wish. If you like it, fine. If not, also fine.
By the way, I don´t think you addressed my most recent comments on probabilities and the holographic nature of reality. Are you, perhaps, a "true nonbeliever"? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2845
 United Kingdom
7/27/2005 3:04 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
  |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
United States
7/27/2005 3:08 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
...well, I for one rather appreciated Eileen´s and Infinitea´s contributions
Thank you!
 |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
United States
7/27/2005 3:11 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Infinitea seems like a "true Believer" because she continues to want to believe, in the Cs, in Tobias or whom ever.
No, Vincent, you´ve got me wrong. I am not
a "follower" or "true believer." I pick and
choose from a variety of sources, channeled and not, taking what I can use and leaving the rest. That has always seemed to me the mmost sensible course. I like to play
with ideas. I am not "defending" the C´s when,
for example, I find some constructive reason for why they made a "wrong" prediction. I am simply
looking to my OWN process of discerning truth,
which takes many a winding path.
V: Okay, fine... stop telling us what the latest hot-shit space brother channeler has to say, and tell us what YOU think, what you feel, and why you feel that way. The Cs din´t make a wrong prediction, the event had already happened, they were just wrong when they tried to discern an observable fact. That seems to be a very poor way to explain the multiple nature of reality, IMHO. Your insistance that they COULD be right, even if only in an alternative universe, goes to the core of your desire to believe in any of these exalted being with the secret truth. That desire, as I know from my own experience, is what hooks you in. The Cs were flat wrong, ther eand on EVERY other instance I can find where they commented on an observable fact outside LKJ´s awareness. If they are actually talking about a reality where NOTHING happens as it does over here in this reality, then what, ultimately, is the point? The only constructive reason, IMHO, that the Cs got the SS murder wrong was that they didn´t know, aren´t even in our reality, and are too eager to please to say anything other than what the channeller wants to hear...
I submit that
from a larger perspective, this whole experience
with Laura and the C´s serves everyone involved
in one way or another.
V: Yep, and i´ve said so several times in public comments...
Which is not to say you should not express your feelings of being wronged, pursue justice, etc. By all means, assert yourself and your own power in this situation.
V: As I said, I am somewhat responsible, and so, since I do believe in honor, I am doing what I can to redress the wrong...
It would be nice if you would stop pigeonholing me as some kind of cultist just because I don´t dismiss everything that has come through in the C´s material, or the whole field of channeling, as bunkum.
V: As I pointed out in my above comment, the DESIRE to believe in these advanced, external, intelligences is what labels you as a true believer. I´m just directing your attention to the reflex.
But I know you´re going to think what you want about me, and as for me, I´ll keep on expressing myself in whatever way I wish. If you like it, fine. If not, also fine.
V: I actually like your spunk, or i´d just ignore your comments. Please feel free to keep it up, not that you need my permission, lol!
By the way, I don´t think you addressed my most recent comments on probabilities and the holographic nature of reality. Are you, perhaps, a "true nonbeliever"?
V: Oh yeah, I think "I believe..." is the most dangerous words in any language. When i say I believe in something, as I did before, I don´t mean something like I believe in God, proof of which, however it/IT is defined, is obvious to most, but a will to act in a way that serves the greater good of all life; I believe in virtue and I believe in the value of the human experience. Beyond that, my belief in anything tends to define my perceptions...
VB |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 3:22 PM | | ac gal
User ID: 2811
 Spain
7/27/2005 3:32 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
But, Vin, do you believe in the holographic universe, the holographic nature of reality and the grand illusion? And if so, do you believe in the importance of quantum thought? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15072
United States
7/27/2005 3:48 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
 |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
United States
7/27/2005 3:54 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
But, Vin, do you believe in the holographic universe, the holographic nature of reality and the grand illusion? And if so, do you believe in the importance of quantum thought?
V: I don´t "believe" theories as a general rule. I have some evidence that the multiverse is a two-source hologramic projection, or at least it acts that way if you examine it with several modalities at once... And I thnk "quantum thoughts" all the time... As I mentioned several posts ago, the interpretation of Bell´s Theorem suggests that the universe thinks us, not the other way around...
VB |
| kris nli
User ID: 2892
United States
7/27/2005 4:18 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
re the intriguing laura = helena idea
one problem with shopping in the spiritual supermarket is the difficulty in following
the money, finding out more about
the funding sources for these ideas
i try to bear in mind that off-world
agencies, intel, big money and The Cult
tend to have interests that happen to
coincide.
from an essay about religious mind control cults
at theforbiddenknowledge website
"...disinformation was initially effected through the creation of the Theosophical Society, whose founding members, including Russian-born Helena Blavatsky, were initiates of various Illuminati secret societies. ...
Among its members were Colonel Olcott and Charles Southeran, both of whom founded, together with Blavatsky, the Theosophical Society of today.
"In her private correspondence, Blavatsky revealed that her "Ascended Masters" were, in actuality, merely nicknames she had assigned to wealthy masonic patrons of the Theosophical Society, and displayed outrage against phony psychics claiming to channel these non- existent beings.{17}
"Prominently associated with the Theosophical Society during its formative years was Russian military attache´ Count Muraviev-Amurskky, who was an operative of Count Alexander Ignatiev, whose family were long-time controllers of the military arm of the Okrana - Russia´s pro revolutionary intelligence service. The Okrana was headquartered within the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy, an arm of the Russian Orthodox Church."
kris insert: count muraviev ... interesting
name. |
| kris, still nli
User ID: 2892
United States
7/27/2005 4:21 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
follow the money |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2892
United States
7/27/2005 4:29 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
 |
| kris nli
User ID: 2892
United States
7/27/2005 4:30 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
helena b: show me the money |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2892
United States
7/27/2005 4:33 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17090
United States
7/27/2005 4:33 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
A wise man once said that channeling is like living in the slums, opening your front door and yelling out ‘Come on in!’
I have to agree with Vincent that getting bogged down in ‘quantum thought’, whatever that is, is a complete waste of time. The plain facts are that the Cassiopaeans are wrong. Dead wrong. And I don’t want to hear arguments about parallel universes or anything like that. They were wrong on Susan Smith. Just examine the record.
Laura Knight Jadczyk and her husband Ark Jadczyk changed the transcripts. That was wrong also.
As for their pathetic attacks against Anders, is this what we can expect from these self-appointed protectors and warriors against the New World Order and Bush? They can’t even answer a few simple questions and we think that they are telling us the truth about anything else? If this is an indication of the anti-war, anti-Bush movement then I guess we can expect them to lose.
As far as I am concerned Laura Knight Jadczyk has proven one thing very clearly – she is a total wimp.
C’mon Laura get on this forum and defend yourself!
Also I looked at Signs of the Times where they now have a scam going asking for donations. They claim they work 16 hours a day on Signs.
Doing what?
It takes 16 hours a day to copy and paste articles from rense.com and add a few asinine comments? They must have some might slow servers there in France.
We have been patiently waiting for Laura Knight Jadczyk to answer a few simple questions. When will she get a spine and come over here to answer them?
More questions while we wait:
1) Who do plan to plagiarize next?
2) How did it feel to stab someone repeatedly?
3) When are you planning to attack Vincent and Anders on your site?
4) Will you offer them a chance to respond to your attacks the way that they have offered you a chance to respond?
5) Have you any plans for returning the money that you stole in the House Raffle Scam?
6) Why does Ark repeat himself constantly? Is there something wrong with him? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 992
United States
7/27/2005 4:40 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
What 12546 said.
Sums up everything I was thinking. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1816
United States
7/27/2005 4:40 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
> it begins to look in some senses like a
> script being replayed in different time
> and space::
I was probably being overly kind in linking to the idea of astral precipitation by a master occultist (who or whatever such a being would, uhh, be)... but again the point was the similarity of the contact descriptions, once you abstract away the respective bogeymen identities behind the scenes. The Mahatmas seemed very literate and less fond of puns and word-games (characteristic of lower astral critters), however.
I´d find the correlation downright frightening, as there is a very... malleable... philosophy being laid out for us by the C´s.
> kris insert: count muraviev ... interesting
> name.
Wow. No kidding. Muraviev - Mouravieff. Ff there is family lineage this picture starts to get interesting quickly. Follow the money, and follow the bloodlines, generally is how the world seems to work. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 4:40 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
kris insert: count muraviev ... interesting
name.
Bingo. Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Bango. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 4:54 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
THOUGH NEVER TAKEN SERIOUSLY DURING HIS LIFETIME, and rarely mentioned in Gurdjieffian literature, the name Boris Mouravieff has in recent years become more than a footnote, thanks to a diligent campaign by his latter-day followers. Though he never joined the Work, forever remaining on its periphery, gleaning here and there what information he could, criticizing and casting doubt, Mouravieff was never quite able to get Gurdjieff and the teaching out of his system. Then in 1961, 12 years after Gurdjieff’s death, Mouravieff came forward with a three-volume work, Gnosis, which purported to give what he called "the complete" exposition of the exoteric, mesoteric, and esoteric tradition of Eastern orthodoxy.
In fact, it was a direct appropriation of the ideas of the Fourth Way as Gurdjieff had presented them during his Russian period (1912–1919) and which Ouspensky reported in his book, In Search of the Miraculous. Essentially what Mouravieff did was to strip Gurdjieff’s teaching of its mooring in sacred science and insert it into an Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective, adding some peculiarities of his own making. However, there was a glaring problem. The two teachings simply didn’t fit together. Eastern Orthodox Christianity was mystical and monastic. The Fourth Way was scientific and rooted in ordinary life. To surmount this, Mouravieff invented what he called "the Fifth Way"—a worldly celibacy of platonic courtly love between man and woman, "polar beings" whom he called "The Knight and the Lady of his Dreams." After Mouravieff’s death in 1966 his book soon went out of print and the institute he founded in Switzerland, The Centre for Christian Esoteric Studies, came to nothing, closing its doors within two years.
What must be recognized is that Mouravieff, never having been one of Gurdjieff’s pupils, bases his understanding of the teaching on that of Ouspensky—not Gurdjieff. As such, Mouravieff’s understanding can only be intellectual and therefore partial. A refutation would be as unnecessary as it is tiresome were it not for this small band of Mouravieff’s contemporary followers who, without providing any credible historical evidence, relying instead on hearsay, Mouravieff’s personal conjecture and opinion, as well as other biased sources, have mounted a campaign to: (1) discredit Gurdjieff, (2) deny the authenticity and origin of the teaching as Gurdjieff presented it, and (3) assimilate Mouravieff’s "Christianized" Fourth Way into the Eastern Orthodox Church. Given this, it would be well to examine Mouravieff and the phenomenon he represents. We begin by examining Mouravieff’s relationship with Gurdjieff and then consider Mouravieff’s teaching itself.
A Russian refugee of the Bolshevik revolution, Boris Petrovitch Mouravieff was first introduced to Gurdjieff in 1920 in Constantinople by P. D. Ouspensky.(1) Twelve years younger than Ouspensky, Mouravieff, fascinated with the teaching, attended lectures and movements demonstrations, but formed a strong animus toward Gurdjieff. An aristocrat, intellectual and moralist, Mouravieff no doubt had trouble with Gurdjieff’s unconventional behavior, his acting and trampling on people’s corns, and of course his heavy Caucasian accent, an accent, Ouspensky said, one associated with "anything apart from philosophical ideas." And it was Gurdjieff’s way of teaching, whenever anyone reacted to these manifestations, to make them worse to show people their identification. Though Mouravieff was firm in his determination to stay "outside the zone of his [Gurdjieff´s] personal influence," he had been "poisoned," as Gurdjieff would say, and could never entirely break away. For even after both men left Constantinople and located in Paris, Mouravieff continued to seek out Gurdjieff at the Café de la Paix and in Fontainebleau.
And so when Ouspensky broke with Gurdjieff in 1923 and asked Mouravieff to help with the translation and editing of his book, then titled Fragments of an Unknown Teaching, he gladly agreed. Thereafter, Ouspensky and Mouravieff exchanged many letters on the teaching and whenever Ouspensky visited Paris the two often had dinner together. These letters and meetings, Mouravieff said, "gave me the opportunity to discuss all the elements of the system with him."(2) Thus, Mouravieff’s understanding of the teaching could only have been founded on Ouspensky’s understanding, not Gurdjieff’s. To understand all of Mouravieff’s subsequent thinking and actions, this point is a crucial determinant. Mouravieff apparently never saw it for he makes no defense of it.
Mouravieff Betrays Ouspensky
The reason Ouspensky gave for his break with Gurdjieff was "to save" the teaching. Strangely, he was saving it from the very man who embodied the teaching. Given Mouravieff’s judgment of Gurdjieff as "in the image of a fallen angel," he certainly wholeheartedly supported, no doubt encouraged, Ouspensky’s break. Though he had agreed to help Ouspensky with the book, obviously wishing to learn as much of the teaching as he could without coming under Gurdjieff’s knuckle, Mouravieff was very much against its being published. At the last meeting he had with Ouspensky in 1937, Mouravieff strongly argued that Fragments not be published.(3) Wrote Mouravieff, "I was opposed to the publication. It seemed to me that esoteric doctrine, by its very nature, eludes an account described in detail by writing."
Apparently, with both Gurdjieff and Ouspensky safely dead, Mouravieff had a radical change of mind. For in 1961 Mouravieff was to repeat the pattern and ‘save’ the teaching from Ouspensky who had, of course, ‘saved’ it from Gurdjieff. The confusion and subsequent betrayal that began with Ouspensky now spread to Mouravieff.
The "Fifth Way"
Mouravieff first published an attack on Gurdjieff and Ouspensky in 1958 in a small magazine (interestingly enough given to the idea, fashionable in modern times, of synthesis), then published his 758-page, three-volume Gnosis, its central ideas lifted directly from Ouspensky’s book. First Mouravieff wrapped Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way teaching in a heavy Christian religious coating. Having dislodged and distorted the teaching, he then offered a fanciful updating of the courtly love of medieval days, calling it the "Fifth Way."
Mouravieff’s betrayal would certainly have stunned Ouspensky. Even more so had he known Mouravieff’s true view of him. Ouspensky considered Mouravieff to be a close friend. For Mouravieff, however, Ouspensky was simply a likable person, a talented writer but naïve, mystical and uneducated—someone very much his social and spiritual inferior. Mouravieff’s ‘Ouspensky’ was "charming—although subject to fits of passions—amiable, very skillful in dialectics, this was not a stalwart man. And then this was a self-taught person, he had not even finished his secondary schooling...."(4)
Mouravieff, an exiled aristocrat, had the typical sense of superiority over Russian émigrés he presumed to be socially inferior, especially someone like Ouspensky who felt he "was not protected inwardly, by this precious armor which is the scientific method. Everything in him was wavering, therefore open to exterior influences." [Emphasis added.] Interestingly, this unscientific Ouspensky in his New Model of the Universe, cogently and critically discusses the views of Darwin and Einstein, both of which he rejected at a time when the world was completely entranced with these theories.
Mouravieff Misjudges Ouspensky
Ouspensky’s was a rare nature, supremely rational, scientific yet artistic, mystical. Formidable as his intellect was, he was open to feeling and intuition, and so was able to penetrate beyond what he called "the thin film of false reality" of ordinary life. Though certainly many levels above Ouspensky in terms of class and education, Mouravieff—as esotericist, thinker and writer—was simply not on Ouspensky’s level. Even a cursory comparison of the writings of both men shows a verbiage and a lack of clarity and comprehension on the part of Mouravieff that is well below Ouspensky’s. Mouravieff criticized Ouspensky’s writing as having "the character of reporting conceived in the style of the 20th century, that is to say with a strong personal nuance." This, of course, is exactly what raises Ouspensky’s book above so many turgid ‘esoteric’ tomes. Mouravieff went further, declaring: "On the whole, Fragments of an Unknown Teaching is nothing more than ‘Gurdjieff as seen by Ouspensky.’" Exactly. Unwittingly, Mouravieff thus shows that his understanding of the teaching is predicated only on Ouspensky’s. Also, to speak so condescendingly shows, too, how little Mouravieff appreciated the brilliance, artistry and intellectual integrity with which Ouspensky conveyed his experiences with Gurdjieff and his comprehension of the ideas. Of this Ouspensky has said: "I have written down and described how we met the system(5) and studied it. But I realized what a different impression it all produces on readers as compared to us who actually were there. A reader will never be able to find the right center of gravity.... This is why there are no text books on the system. Things can be written only for those who have studied."(6) It should be noted that Gurdjieff, aware of the difficulty in writing such a book, praised Fragments for its objective reporting of his presentation of the teaching prior to 1923. "Very exact is," Gurdjieff said. "Good memory. Truth, was so." And, "Before I hate Ouspensky, now I love him."
Two Times Two
Mouravieff, always absolutely confident in his own interpretation, revealed a dimension of his relationship with Ouspensky he never suspected when he tells of the two dining with Baroness O. A. Rausch de Traubenberg, a friend who was helping to translate Ouspensky’s book from Russian into English. The baroness’s twelve-year-old son came to the table and asked that the two men write something in his album. Wrote Mouravieff: "Whatever happens in life, never lose sight of the fact that two times two make four." Wrote Ouspensky beneath Mouravieff’s sentence: "Whatever happens in life, don’t lose sight of the fact that two times two never make four." Ouspensky smiled, and gave Mouravieff a mischievous look.
The baroness, who knew both men well, shrugged her shoulders and looking from one to the other, said:
"Well!—in your maxims, I recognize you perfectly, you two."
Of this Mouravieff wrote:
"Whim?—Certainly!—But from the point of view that interests us for the moment [Ouspensky’s attitude toward life], Ouspensky was completely there [referring to the personality, not presence]."
In other words, in Mouravieff’s view, Ouspensky was not scientific, not rational.
Of course, Ouspensky, a real teacher in his own right, was not denying the rationality of two times two making four. Rather, he was completing Mouravieff’s assertion. What he wrote took the absolutism of Mouravieff’s statement (a feature of his) and reopened the statement for the baroness’ son in the sense of asking where and in what cases either of the statements is right or wrong, and further, in what instances they might both apply.
The understanding Ouspensky demonstrated in this episode was outside Mouravieff’s categories of comprehension. A feature of Mouravieff is that he appears to have always evaluated and interpreted from an ordinary scientific level within the context of very conventional notions of morality and good and evil. He no doubt had a strong intellectual center and he always wrote as ‘one-who-knows.’
Gurdjieff’s Mission
But what, in fact, did Mouravieff know?
Did he really know Gurdjieff? Know him well enough to judge him?
Did Mouravieff understand that Gurdjieff’s mission was to establish the ancient teaching of the Fourth Way in the West as quickly as possible? That the world would be on the edge of destroying itself not only with nuclear weapons but most recently with the genetic engineering of life, human and otherwise? That Gurdjieff’s methods sometimes were harsh because he needed to step-down the teaching if it was to take root in his own time? That he could find no one willing to be an instrument of the teaching, no one who could capably be "a helper-instructor"?
Mouravieff’s negative judgment of Gurdjieff rests on four perceptions:
1. Gurdjieff’s methods were "brutal".
2. Gurdjieff hypnotized his students.
3. Gurdjieff’s car crash proved he was not outside the Law of Accident.
4. Gurdjieff stole the teaching.
The question of harshness or brutality has been partly answered. The heart of the matter is whether or not Gurdjieff was brutal in terms of essence and being, not just in his outward manifestation. Many of Gurdjieff’s students have addressed this question, attesting to the rare quality of love that was his. One writes: "What I knew as a child, I am beginning to understand as an adult. Gurdjieff practiced love in a form that is unknown to almost everyone: without limits."(7)
Did Gurdjieff hypnotize his students? Before coming to the West, he made his living as a professional hypnotist. He developed his knowledge and hanbledzoin, that substance upon which hypnotism depends, to an extraordinary degree. Despite his oath not to use hypnotism—"I take an oath to remember never to make use of this inherency [telepathy and hypnotism] of mine...."(8)—he found that "although I tried as much as possible...to keep under the control of my consciousness the undesirable manifestations of my nature, in spite of this, there gradually formed within me, proceeding far beyond the control of my active consciousness, certain automatic influences upon people around me during their waking as well as their hypnotic state. On account of this, there soon began to become really perceptible to my awaking consciousness various consequences, irreconcilable with my nature, of this automatic influence over people, which often evoked in me remorse of conscience...."(9) [Emphasis added.] He is saying his presence was so great that—despite his keeping to his essence-oath—people still fell under this influence. We see the same effect with many, if not all, teachers of Gurdjieff’s caliber. The projection onto the teacher, the unconscious miming of the teacher, the taking of his every manifestation as law, is simply a step on the path of the student which the teacher will break at the necessary moment. And Gurdjieff did. The nightmare train trip to Chicago with Fritz Peters, the bizarre pressures for money with Jean Toomer...these are simply two of the many instances that come to mind. One of Gurdjieff’s intentions in the Third Series was to show himself to his students as a human being with human failings to keep them from idolizing him. How many teachers, one may ask, have had the courage and love to reveal themselves so unflatteringly? What we often see as Gurdjieff’s weaknesses, and he had many, as he himself characteristically admits, he painstakingly transforms into strengths by means of his uncompromising honesty about himself. (Teachers and students, alike, might learn from his example.)
Order The Gurdjieff Journal Vol. 4 No. 4 and Vol. 5 No.1 for the remainder of this article.
Notes
(1)That Ouspensky had known Mouravieff before Constantinople is unclear. Twelve years younger than Ouspensky, Mouravieff was born in Kronstadt, the naval base at St. Petersburg, and was raised and educated in St. Petersburg. Given his interest in esoteric subjects, he might have met Ouspensky at the Theosophical Society, or possibly Mouravieff attended one of Ouspensky’s public lectures at the Duma. What seems more certain is that they did not meet at bohemian clubs that Ouspensky frequented, like The Stray Dog, for Mouravieff’s father was Graf Piotr Petrovitch Mouravieff, admiral of the Russian fleet and vice minister of the Russian navy in the last imperial government before Tsar Nicholas II´s abdication. Mouravieff himself was Prime Minister Kerensky’s principal private secretary during Kerensky’s service as the second prime minister of the new Russian Republic.
(2)Boris Mouravieff, "Ouspensky, Gurdjieff and Fragments of an Unknown Teaching," Revue Synthèses, #138, 1957. All quotes by Mouravieff, unless otherwise indicated, derive from this article.
(3)Had Ouspensky published the book, it seems clear from Gurdjieff’s later praise of it that it would have created the bridge with which the two men might have reconciled, either then or when Ouspensky returned to England from America in January 1947. Its publication would also have provided the teaching with a much needed impetus. So Mouravieff supplied a negative critical influence that had deep repercussions.
(4)It is interesting to note Mouravieff´s sentence construction and usage of "this was not a stalwart man" [emphasis added] in which he uses the impersonal; this was to raise himself above and distance himself from his subject.
(5)An important distinction indicative of levels of understanding. Ouspensky and Mouravieff refer to the system, whereas Gurdjieff speaks of the teaching, as in "The teaching whose theory is here being sent forth...." Search, p. 286. In Ouspensky´s The Fourth Way, p. 400, he reported: "In the beginning in Russia Mr. Gurdjieff always insisted that it [the teaching] was not a system."
(6)P. D. Ouspensky, A Record of Meetings, pp. 118–19.
(7)Fritz Peters, Gurdjieff Remembered (Samuel Weiser, 1971), p. 160.
(8)G. I. Gurdjieff, Life Is Real Only Then When "I Am" (E. P. Dutton, 1978), p. 25.
(9)G. I. Gurdjieff, The Herald of Coming Good (Sure Fire Press, 1988), p. 64. |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
United States
7/27/2005 4:58 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: Okay, fine... stop telling us what the latest hot-shit space brother channeler has to say, and tell us what YOU think, what you feel, and why you feel that way.
I: That is somewhat disingenuous of you. I´ve quoted more physics here than channeling. But it´s interesting, isn´t it, that so much of what comes through many channelers about the nature of reality, is in sync with quantum physics. Seth, for example, was explaining superstring theory before the physicists!
And, I HAVE been telling what I think, but you can´t hear it because my ideas aren´t the same as yours.
V: The Cs din´t make a wrong prediction, the event had already happened, they were just wrong when they tried to discern an observable fact. That seems to be a very poor way to explain the multiple nature of reality, IMHO. Your insistance that they COULD be right, even if only in an alternative universe, goes to the core of your desire to believe in any of these exalted being with the secret truth.
I: As I said, just playing with ideas, discerning my own truth, etc. I did agree with you that it would have been good if they´d been right. However, in the grand scheme of things, I just can´t see this as being very important. And if it´s all the same to you, I´d rather drop the subject.
VB: That desire, as I know from my own experience, is what hooks you in. The Cs were flat wrong, ther eand on EVERY other instance I can find where they commented on an observable fact outside LKJ´s awareness. If they are actually talking about a reality where NOTHING happens as it does over here in this reality, then what, ultimately, is the point? The only constructive reason, IMHO, that the Cs got the SS murder wrong was that they didn´t know, aren´t even in our reality, and are too eager to please to say anything other than what the channeller wants to hear...
I: "Eager to please" is not the vibe I get from the C´s, at least not from the early sessions. I would not put much stock in what
Laura is bringing through now.
<skip>
V: As I pointed out in my above comment, the DESIRE to believe in these advanced, external, intelligences is what labels you as a true believer. I´m just directing your attention to the reflex.
I: Again, this is quite disingenuous of you. If I find any value at all in anything the C´s say, that makes me a "true believer", as if I was living with Laura in France and hanging on every word that issues from her mouth (and computer)??
V: I actually like your spunk, or i´d just ignore your comments. Please feel free to keep it up, not that you need my permission, lol!
I: True, I don´t need your permission, but thank you anyway. And hey, you´re pretty spunky yourself 
V: Oh yeah, I think "I believe..." is the most dangerous words in any language. When i say I believe in something, as I did before, I don´t mean something like I believe in God, proof of which, however it/IT is defined, is obvious to most, but a will to act in a way that serves the greater good of all life; I believe in virtue and I believe in the value of the human experience.
I: I´m with you there.
V: Beyond that, my belief in anything tends to define my perceptions...
I: I agree that blind belief is very dangerous, and I rely on my intuition and my heart to tell me the truth about anything. I have beliefs, as do we all, but they are in constant flux. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 5:02 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Mouravieff’s father was Graf Piotr Petrovitch Mouravieff, admiral of the Russian fleet and vice minister of the Russian navy in the last imperial government before Tsar Nicholas II´s abdication. Mouravieff himself was Prime Minister Kerensky’s principal private secretary during Kerensky’s service as the second prime minister of the new Russian Republic. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 5:03 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
The Okrana was headquartered within the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy, an arm of the Russian Orthodox Church |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 5:19 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Hmmmmm
deep down the rabbit hole
So Mouravieff was the PPS to Kerensky...
The deployment of Madame Blavatsky into the West had been part of the same effort--called the "Dostoevsky Project" by the Theosophically-inspired Frankfurt School--which led the Okhrana to unleash the Scottish Freemasonic forces of the liberal Alexander Kerensky, then the "dark forces" of the Bolsheviks (many of whom, including V.I. Lenin, had been trained on the Isle of Capri in the cult beliefs of the Emperor Tiberius, who murdered Christ), for an assault upon the Petrine state. Among those principally responsible for deploying the hashish-addicted Blavatsky into the West were: Count Alexander Ignatiev, one-time head of the Okhrana as interior minister, whose family later joined with the Bolshevik Revolution; Imperial Privy Councilor Prince Aksakov, whose correspondence with Blavatsky reveals him to be a key controller; Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose writings have regained popularity under Gorbachov, because they were a19th-century revival of the Russian Orthodox Church´s "blood-and-soil" doctrine [a Luciferic throwback to previous evolutionary epochs] that Moscow would become "the Third and Final Rome"; and, Mikhail, Vladimir, and Vsevelod Soloviev, who, from such bases as the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy, propounded the doctrines of Spiritualism that are being revived in Russia today, and who profiled Blavatsky as Tentacles of the Blavatsky deployment extended quickly through the West:
United States - In 1873, Blavatsky traveled to the U.S., where with the Spiritualist Colonel Olcott, she founded the American Theosophical Society, whose headquarters became Pasadena, California. Colonel Olcott had been involved in seances at this time on a farm in Chittenden, Vermont, with Mary Baker Eddy, who founded Christian Science as co-extensive with Theosophy. Later, Olcott accompanied Blavatsky to Adyar, India, which became the spiritual center of the cult.
Great Britain - In 1883, Blavatsky´s disciple Annie Besant, who later assumed Blavatsky´s mantle as High Priestess of Theosophy, was a co-founder of the British Fabian Society (predecessor of the Labour Party) together with Gnostic Christians and Spiritualists, including the Spiritualist Frank Podmore, later British Prime Minister J. Ramsay Macdonald, Soviet agent Lord Haldane, Lord and Lady Passfield, the Freemason William Clarke, Earl Bertrand Russell, Viscount and Viscountess Snowden, Lord Sidney Oliver, Lord Thomson, and others. In the same year, Scottish noble Douglas Dunglas Home, who had sponsored Blavatsky as early as 1858 and given seances for the Czar, returned to Great Britain, where with support of the Cecil family, he founded the Society for Psychical Research, whose members included Arthur Conan Doyle, Lord Balfour, Lord Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and William James.
Another excrescence of Theosophy was the explicitly Satanist Edward Aleister Crowley´s Order of the Golden Dawn (or, Stella Matutina), which overlapped the predominantly Anglo-American Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) and the Thule Society in Munich, which gave birth to the Nazi Party through the good offices of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Karl Haushofer, Rudolf Hess, and the Wagner Kreis.
Germany - Blavatsky´s co-controller, Count Aksakov, established in Leipzig, Germany a Theosophical magazine, Psychische Studien, which was influential upon the careers of Sigmund Freud and especially Carl Jung. It also influenced the schismatic Theosophist Rudolf Steiner, who founded in 1913 the Dornach, Switzerland-based Anthroposophy sect, which has lately been a leading influence within West Germany´s Free Democratic Party, and also the seed-crystal in southern Germany of the fascist Green party. [2] Meanwhile, in the 1920s, a Berlin-based Theosophist, Graf von Reventlow, founded a European network of the Comintern´s Baku Conference of "Oppressed Peoples,´´ which sought to merge Marxism with Sufism.
Switzerland - The Ascona, Switzerland secret base of Theosophy--centered around a cult of Astarte--was the spiritual center of the Frankfurt School, which overlapped the Soviet GRU (military intelligence) through such founders as Hede Massing, Richard Sorge, and Max Horkheimer, who developed the "Authoritarian Personality´´ dogma to target and destroy those who based their behavior upon natural law. Ascona was also a spiritual center of the "Children of the Sun´´ gay and lesbian networks, which overlapped the Philby, Burgess, Maclean spy network in Great Britain. Finally, Ascona was the religious center for the Theosophical psychiatrist Carl Jung, popularizer of the Gnostic Bible. Among Jung´s disciple-patients were: Mary Bancroft, the mistress-secretary of Allen Dulles, who was OSS chief in Switzerland during World War II; and Mary and Paul Mellon, who, on their return to the U.S. in 1939, founded the Bollingen Foundation to propagate Gnosticism and a study center on witchcraft at Princeton University. Also, Lenin himself participated in cult dances on Monte Verita in Ascona. |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
United States
7/27/2005 5:22 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: I don´t "believe" theories as a general rule. I have some evidence that the multiverse is a two-source hologramic projection, or at least it acts that way if you examine it with several modalities at once... And I thnk "quantum thoughts" all the time... As I mentioned several posts ago, the interpretation of Bell´s Theorem suggests that the universe thinks us, not the other way around...
To quote from my favorite "channeled" source, the Alice material:
He´s dreaming now,´ said Tweedledee: `and what do you think he´s dreaming about?´
Alice said `Nobody can guess that.´
`Why, about you!´ Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. `And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you´d be?´
`Where I am now, of course,´ said Alice.
`Not you!´ Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. `You´d be nowhere. Why, you´re only a sort of thing in his dream!´
`If that there King was to wake,´ added Tweedledum, `you´d go out-- bang!--just like a candle!´
I would add, though, that Alice IS the Red King (the dreamer) , which answers the question in the last
chapter of Through The Looking-Glass: "Which dreamed it?" Answer: Both!
In his book, The Dreaming Universe, Fred Alan Wolf writes: "The Universe dreams itself."
And since we ARE the universe--both the whole and the part simultaneously--it´s a mutual dream experience. |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
United States
7/27/2005 5:38 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
I: That is somewhat disingenuous of you. I´ve quoted more physics here than channeling. But it´s interesting, isn´t it, that so much of what comes through many channelers about the nature of reality, is in sync with quantum physics. Seth, for example, was explaining superstring theory before the physicists!
V: If that´s true, then E. A. Poe discovered relativity in his 1848 essay Eureka! And Jules Verne invented rocketry...
And, I HAVE been telling what I think, but you can´t hear it because my ideas aren´t the same as yours.
V: You´ve been telling us what you think you should believe, based on the all knowing channel of the moment, not what you feel, have experienced or even thought about very deeply...
V: The Cs din´t make a wrong prediction, the event had already happened, they were just wrong when they tried to discern an observable fact. That seems to be a very poor way to explain the multiple nature of reality, IMHO. Your insistance that they COULD be right, even if only in an alternative universe, goes to the core of your desire to believe in any of these exalted being with the secret truth.
I: As I said, just playing with ideas, discerning my own truth, etc. I did agree with you that it would have been good if they´d been right. However, in the grand scheme of things, I just can´t see this as being very important. And if it´s all the same to you, I´d rather drop the subject.
V: Well, I suppose to a true believer, the truth isn´t very important... I like you Infinitea, as I said you have spunk. But you really need to read less and experience more... IMHO...LOL!
VB |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
United Kingdom
7/27/2005 5:40 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
ref Mouravieff Laura witters:
In recent months however, we have been surveying a body of teachings that not only meshes with, but vigorously expands upon the Cassiopaean Transmissions to an extent that we cannot think that it is accidental. In fact, the overlapping and "filling in the gaps" quality of this work is so astounding that we are certain that the Cassiopaeans themselves are very likely involved in this teaching in ways we do not understand.
As it happens, during our research into Boris M., we discovered that he was being soundly lambasted by William Patrick Patterson in his book "Talking With the Left Hand" in which he accuses Mouravieff of "stealing" his ideas from Gurdjieff.
Nevertheless, William Patrick Patterson has penned rather harsh and unseemly accusations against Mouravieff - rather similar to our own experiences with Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley - that need to be addressed.
I would like to note here that the work of Mouravieff provides that ineluctable bridge between the works of Gurdjieff, Ibn al-´Arabi, Carlos Casteneda, conjectured esoteric Christianity, hermeticism/alchemy and the Cassiopaeans
In response to these ideas, obviously dear to the heart of many Gurdjieff followers, including Patterson, let me just point out that Gurdjieff never accomplished the transmutation. He died just like everybody else.
Considering the fact that several other "seekers" were reputed to have transitioned without seeing death - Flamel and Fulcanelli among them - we might think that the only parts of Gurdjieff´s work that should interest us are the parts that elucidate the work of the affirmed Masters. And frankly, Mouravieff has offered many clues that do, in fact, contribute to the body of alchemical/hermetic knowledge in a significant way.
So, in reading these many sources and comparing, we do have some chance of discerning the gems caught between the cracks in the pavement. Patterson has done himself and all other seekers a great disservice in his attacks on Mouravieff.
The work of Mouravieff was only translated into English fairly recently, but Ark read them in French many years ago. He had forgotten much of what was in them because he had to read them with a dictionary and it was a slow and laborious process. But recently, when we found them in English, we ordered them and I have to tell you that reading some of the things in there really amazed me.
Here we skip a couple hundred pages where Mouravieff brings in some Synarchy stuff under the influence of the negative occult "tradition" which was very active at the time he was writing and has influenced many people to follow the wrong path.
[Anders- INDEED! Yeah! Just SKIP IT!!!]
This is also true. Ark and I simply find it impossible to lie to each other. Even silly little "avoidances" become like huge barriers and we are compelled from inside to reveal every thought and feeling and idea. And this was true from the very beginning. We knew, somehow, that to lie would be a disaster.
[Anders - LMAO!!! ROFL!!!]
This was absolutely the case for both Ark and myself. Past life memories literally flooded into our waking and sleeping consciousnesses.
(Anders - SUUUUURRRE!]
And I can guarantee the reader that Mouravieff presents the keys to move on to the next level.
 |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
United States
7/27/2005 5:42 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Okay folks, I´m going to be away from the computer for the next few days. Please hold the fort everybody, and save any question for me until I come back...
LVX you all,
VB |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16961
United States
7/27/2005 5:42 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Infintea
I feel a lot better now that I know that the jews just dreamed the concentration camps, that slaves just dreamed that they were in bondage, that the Irish just dreamed that Cromwell was murdering them.
This site is about Laura Knight Jadczyk. Can we stick the the subject please? |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 | |
|
