Gurdjieff in Tibet, Layne Negrin, Always and Everywhere Publishing, NY, 2025 (554 pages, no index or bibliography)
I was pleased to purchase this book, despite the significant cost, as I have been pondering whether there is any evidence to support Gurdjieff’s assertions that he had been in Tibet, and also, the author (Layne Negrin) was kind enough to send me some material when I was working on the Bennett study. I am preparing a review for an academic journal, which will go more into methodology, and offer a fuller critique and evaluation. In that article, I shall treat the book as a serious study, and make little or no mention of its strangeness, but in sober fact, I wonder whether – and even hope for the author’s sake – that the book is an elaborate hoax. The main issue I wish to address in this short review is whether anyone with an interest in Gurdjieff should at least look at this book, and I think, even if only for the ink drawing, the answer must be yes.
In the preface, Layne states that he is presenting a theory of “the source of the Gurdjieff teaching.” (1) The book presents in three unequal parts with an appendix. The first part is headed “The Quest of Urgyen Tag,” the latter being Layne’s hypothesised back-translation of the name the “Tiger of Turkestan,” except that there is no “Turkestan” in it (he consistently produces an argument for the conclusion he wishes to arrive at, then when facts do not fit, dismisses them as Gurdjieff hiding his trail, or otherwise altered for some pretext – and he is rather adept at devising reasons for other people to alter the facts). Another example, when Gurdjieff says that the soul finds its place 7×48 days after death, Layne declares that this is evidence Gurdjieff knew the Bardo Thodol, and although that says it takes 7×7 days to “traverse the bardo” (as if this is definitely what Gurdjieff spoke of), the author asserts that Gurdjieff must have modified the Tibetan to include a reference to World 48. On this “logic”, the name “Beelzebub” is the Tibetan name Lobsang, but Gurdjieff changed it to draw attention to the Judaic tradition, and now we have more evidence that Gurdjieff was in Tibet and obtained his system there.
This first part deals in such a manner with a miscellany of matters, loosely organised around Gurdjieff’s possible relation with Tibet. However, it is marked throughout by the type of circular reasoning I have referred to. Further, there are many details in Gurdjieff’s system for which he does not even try to find a Tibetan parallel. The place to start must be by setting out what is essential in Gurdjieff’s system, and then methodically look for those features in Tibetan Buddhism. [As an aside, to his credit, Bennett did just this; thus he took very seriously the central role of the Heropass in Gurdjieff’s system and found it in Zurvanism. My only critique would be that it is also possible that Gurdjieff discovered this for himself, with no reference to Zurvanism – or, and I am studying this possibility now – Zurvanism may have passed into an Armenian tradition.]
The second and longest part is “Children Seeking their Roots,” another assembly of materials concerning pupils of Gurdjieff and their relations with Tibetan Buddhism. This is not quite the fantasy the first part is: there was and is a genuine tendency for people who do not have or do not use the authentic Gurdjieff contemplative exercises to look to other traditions. As I have contended in Gurdjieff: Mysticism … he himself concluded that his system needed these exercises, and he began to devise them in the last decade of his life. But to be effective they must be taught and used in their fulness; and those who received them did not do so: the evidence is overwhelming (I presented more of the evidence in my Bennett book).
The third and shortest part is “Ponderings of a Grandchild,” some pieces written by Layne himself to show how “Gurdjieff buried nonduality in his writings” (5). The appendix is an interview with Sophie Perks, who was told by Chogyam Trungpa that she is Gurdjieff’s tulku (reincarnation), 449. The absurdity of this is yet another reason for suspecting either a hoax or a massive self-induced delusion. She herself says that when Trungpa was asked about this, he said “Well, she’s somebody, she might as well be Gurdjieff.” (540) Even I know enough about the Tibetan procedure to know that this is a farce.
I will note now, but pursue further in the academic article, that Gurdjieff specifically disavowed a Tibetan origin for his system, and stated that he was disappointed in what he found there (Early Talks, 172; Orage’s Commentary … 145, 147, 161-2, 251). I had always thought it more likely than not that Gurdjieff actually went to Tibet – but the person who was best placed to confirm this, Yahne Le Toumilin, “came to believe that Gurdjieff had never set foot in Tibet …” (283 of this very book), and as a result of that, and of Layne’s lack of evidence that he travelled to and ever lived in Tibet, as opposed to having read about Tibet, or heard about it, I am now quite unsure. In fact, the only reason to think he was ever in Tibet is his comments to Orage, noted above, and not anything in this strange book. That is, one can point to Tibetan analogues for episodes in All and Everything, or to ideas with a certain similarity in both Tibetan Buddhism and Gurdjieff – but then why does Gurdjieff had to have gone there to know of the Tibetan parallel – if indeed he did?
This is a significant point: there is much evidence in Beelzebub and elsewhere that Gurdjieff read and wrote Greek, Armenian, Russian, Turkish, and at least some Persian. I know of none, absolutely none, that he could read or write Tibetan – and Layne produces none. He does assert that Tibetan words are used in Movement 15 of 39 (184) but I have checked the Paris notes for this Movement, and the days of the week are given in French. So if he has more evidence, he might reveal it.
Layne is “inclined towards the Buddhist origin theory” being himself a Buddhist, but he does not critique theories of Sufi, Christian, Advaita, or Gnostic origin. Then, he seems to endorse the idea that “Gurdjieff’s source is the source of all traditions …” (1) I am unsure which origin theory he is proposing (Buddhist or universalist), or whether he perhaps identifies Buddhism with the “source of all.” A Tibetan Buddhist origin strikes him as important for making the “nondual essence” of Gurdjieff’s system clear (4). He might, in any future edition, elucidate what is mean by “nondual” when he himself distinguishes this position from “the common dualistic interpretation.” I may be missing something, but I cannot see how the dualist/nondualist distinction is not dualist, and whether “nondualism” is not a rather airy fantasy.
In my view, the most valuable part of this volume is the ink drawing made by Gurdjieff on one of the front papers. It is quite stunning, and what is more, I was struck by it before I had read that it was by Gurdjieff. Oddly, Negrin says that copyright is claimed by someone to whom it was given by Annette Herter. I cannot see how that is any basis for a copyright claim. Copyright resides in the creator of a drawing or anyone to whom the creator assigns it. Further, copyright is generally the life of the creator plus seventy years. Without evidence that Gurdjieff specifically assigned in writing not only the drawing but also copyright, I would have thought that copyright expired on 29 October 2019. Why people would even wish to claim copyright in such an item is another question.
The binding of this volume really holds together two collections of material: a scrapbook of material, and essays by Layne, much of which leads up to or takes its cue from the scrapbook. I would say that the scrapbook is the most successful part of the book: it is in fact, for the most part, quite interesting, but much of the Tibetan Buddhist material could have been omitted with no real loss to the thesis,
Finally, this so strange: he argues that Flinders Petrie was “Skridlov” from Meetings. Knowing what I do of Petrie’s life and racist, eugenic opinions, I can hardly believe Layne is serious about this: even the absurdity of his arguments (“It seems more likely that he would have been playing the Marseillaise in France” 30) may give a clue that he is pulling our collective leg; neither can I imagine that he has forgotten Ouspensky’s comment that G. did not read French (ISM 325-326). I only fear that he is serious.
There is a movement called “Tibetan Morse” in which there are these series of words, which does have some Buddhist/Tibetan words : “Om – Chang – Nasti”, and so on..
I appreciate your conribution, but are you sure that Movement is from Gurdjieff? I began Movements over 40 years ago and I have never heard of it. Further, it is not in the Howarth Movements archive. So I am going to want some clear evidence it is from him. Besides, I just looked up “nasti” on AI, and it says “No, “nasti” is not a Tibetan word, but rather a Sanskrit term meaning “does not exist” or “there is not”.” It says that in Tibetan, “chang” is a fermented barley beer. Then, Gurdjieff usually pronounced “Om” as “Aum,” which may be Coptic. The more I see the asserted evidence for Gurdjieff’s having been in Tibet, the more I think Yahne – who was a pupil of G., and travelled and lived in Tibet – may have been correct: he may not have set foot in Tibet. Mongolia, however, is something very different.It is of course adjacent to Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism was and still is, apparently, quite a feature there. I would like to visit in one day.
In Wim van Dulleimans video to accompany his movements book there is:
“4. Tibetan Exercise II: Twenty-four Tibetan words are recited during the Movement. The entremède is the word “will” in Morse code”
https://www.hohmpress.com/products/gurdjieff-movements-video
Plus in the Howarth archives there are several Tibetan movements, and several Morse movements, one of which could possibly be this movement under an alternative name?
Thanks. I respect Wim, but is this a Gurdjieff Movement, and is there evidence he learnt it in Tibet? That is what I am querying, because what makes Layne’s book different is that he is saying the source of the system is Tibet. I cannot afford the price of the video, but if you could check the words and that they are in fact Tibetan, that would be good. But is there evidence G. could not have learnt those words anywhere but in Tibet? Recall that David-Neel studied Tibetan and Sanskrit in Paris in 1897. We need a “differential,” as I have contended in my academic work – something whcih distinguishes G.’s knowledge of Tibet from what was known. This does not provde Gurdjieff was not there, it shows there is no unequivocal evidence he was there.
Yes, I know there are several Movements called “Tibetan.” We studied them with Mrs Adie. What I am not sure about is that Gurdjieff learnt them in Tibet. I could put together a Tibetan exercise with genuine Tibetan words using the resources available to me, but I have never been there. Gurdjieff had movements called “Pythagoras.” That hardly means he spoke to Pythagoras. I did check the Howarth archive and I found nothing there with Tibetan words.
I once asked Marina Bear ( who cowrote Luba Gurdjieff’s cookbook ) whether she thought Gurdjieff had actually visited Tibet. She said she had asked Luba the same question. “He took my father’s boots. When he came back they were worn down to nothing. Yes he went to Tibet ” Luba replied. This proves nothing except that Luba believed that he did visit there.
“Tibet is an example where, ten years ago, all government was in the hands of the monks. But they couldn’t put my ideas into practice, because my teaching was not known to them. My teaching is my own. It combines all the evidence of ancient truth that I collected in my travels with all the knowledge that I have acquired through my own personal work.”
G.I. Gurdjieff
source: 1992 edition of De Hartmann’ s – Our Life with Mr. Gurdjieff
Yes, I avert to that in my review – it is also now in Early Talks, p.172, and is one of the things which will be spelt out in the academic review.
Below are some quotes from ‘Meetings with Remarkable Men’ that suggest that Gurdjieff and Soloviev visited or were at least planning to go to Tibet. When they reached the fortress of the Sarmoung brotherhood, whilst staying outside for a few days prior to gaining entry he says that Soloviev was “memorizing Tibetan words” and that “We either lay on our beds or went to the waterfall, where, to its monotonous sound, we memorized Tibetan words”. After Sarmoung, he describes their expedition into the Gobi desert where he says “we built fires at least twice a day to cook our meals and prepare coffee or tea, and not only ordinary tea, but also Tibetan tea”. He also states that “Soloviev was later an authority on what is called Eastern medicine in general, and on Tibetan medicine in particular”. If true, its possible that Soloviev learned this in Tibet.
In Roger Lipsey’s book on Gurdjieff, he mentions that on a trip to Tibet they watched a dance performed by Tibetans that matched one that Gurdjieff taught.
In Meeting 19 of the Paris meetings there is this discussion which seems sufficient evidence from Gurdjieff himself, that he spent time in Tibet;
“[Mr. Gurdjieff has given an exercise and afterward he shows the group an engraving representing seven Oriental dancers, with headdresses like gigantic spherical hats surmounted by antennas; they are striking in cadence their tambourines and blowing into pipes like fifes under the direction of their chief who holds in his hand a sort of pennant. Mr. Gurdjieff asks each pupil to give an opinion as to what this picture represents. No one knows. One woman thinks it is a Tibetan dance.]
Gurdjieff: That is it, the scene is in Tibet. It is a unique thing; a divine music that I heard in the mountains of Tibet. And at the same time. There was no music. And yet down in the foothills below one heard music. [The group goes to the table and dines.
After dinner a student speaks to Mr. Gurdjieff.] Questioner: Sir, what does that picture represent that you showed us a while ago? Gurdjieff: I have told you. I was very astonished when I saw that for the first time. It is a ceremony that takes place in Tibet.”
Gurdjieff goes on to describe in detail what he witnessed including this statement;
“We have read in a chapter of the Second Series [Meetings with Remarkable Men] about Prince Lubovedsky some details about the temples of Tibet where the priestesses have studied such movements from infancy before the branched instrument which expressed the law of seven”.
I’m also aware of meeting transcripts where Gurdjieff describes the process of loading yaks, oiling the body, wearing rubber undergarments and multiple layers to survive the freezing mountain conditions.
Thanks. I have the quotes. The issue is how we think: (1) how do we evaluate the materials; and (2) what are we saying flows from them? I think I may need a further post on the topic. Besides, if you look carefully at Lipey’s book, he doesn’t say what you think he does.
Talk about coincidence, i am returning to my place from a Gurdjieff movement workshop in kerala, India, in a bus, and i open your page to check, if my comment was of some help to you. I saw the discussion on Pythagoras, and we did the movement Pythagoras in our workshop. We also did a movement called “Tibetan Mask”. Im sharing the link with you. I would also like to suggest that Gurdjieff in Tibet could indicate towrds Lama-ism, or Bon traditions. The cultural and mystical aspect stretches from Tibet till Afghanistan. Places like present Majaar-e-Shariff , erstwhile Sham-e-bala, were known for hosting understanding of different religions. Tibetan Mask –
https://youtu.be/OAQmghnicuc?si=RU0aGpTyYFevktzU
Thanks. Your point about the territorial extent of “Tibet” is good. It has occurred to me. I have read somewhere where Bennett said something like “when G. said ‘Tibet’ he often meant Baltistan.” I intend to look at Mongolia. THanks for the reference to Tibetan Maks. I know of that Movement. Yes, Gurdjieff said he had been there and called some of his Movements, his music, and his meals, “Tibetan.” I am not saying he did not go there – I am saying there is no objective evidence other than his own say-so that he did. The real question Layne raises is the source of G.’s system. I have said some things about that in previous works, and have some forthcoming publications.
I would be very interested to find the source of where you say, “I have read somewhere where Bennett said something like “when G. said ‘Tibet’ he often meant Baltistan.”
This dance looks like a purely Gurdjieff created one. Movements are very similar in style to many he created.
Thanks, Abhay. I have looked extensively into the origins of Tibetan Buddhism in what was once the Uddiyana region, which is present day Swat Valley and the larger area of the Hindu Kush. In an upcoming book, I explore this and the connections to Gurdjieff’s Work. Note that this is not saying that Gurdjieff never went to Tibet. It is highly likely he did. It’s just that the conclusions that Negrin comes to about this point in a different, preconceived direction, i.e. that it constitutes proof that he trained and lived there and that the source of the Work overall is from Tibetan Buddhism… or, in the least, from elements of Vajrayana tradition. However, one could equally say that of Sufism or esoteric Christianity. Hence, a wider view is needed. Here is a short excerpt:
Gurdjieff likely encountered Tibetan Buddhist ideas and methods during his travels in the Hindu Kush in Central Asia and, less likely, in Tibet itself. The region of Uddiyana, now in the region call the Swat Valley, is often cited as the birthplace of Tantra and Vajrayana and the place from which Buddhism entered Tibet. This may also be the area of Central Asia where Gurdjieff placed his possibly mythical Sarmoung monastery. As we shall see in what follows, the correspondences between Gurdjieff’s Work and Tibetan Buddhism and its predecessors would support this. However, Gurdjieff may have gleaned these ideas, methods, and practices elsewhere given the rich interaction and dispersal of ancient traditions in the wider geographical area.
Either way, this area played a crucial role in shaping these Tibetan Buddhist methods, incorporating influences from Shaivism, Mahayana Buddhism, and the indigenous Bön tradition.
Dear Joseph,
Obviously we have different perspectives, and that’s fine. Here I only wish to respond to you “suspecting either a hoax or a massive self-induced delusion.” As for the book being a hoax, how many hoaxes do you know of that were 15 years in the making? As for being delusional, anyone who isn’t fully enlightened is delusional to one degree or another. So, I won’t deny being delusional, being unable to fully perceive reality. But your reason for suspecting delusion on my part is a projection. My intention is not to convince anyone of the various possibilities presented. They’re just possibilities (with varying degrees of likelihood in my view). I merely offer what I found so that (1) the reader may draw their own conclusions, and (2) future researchers have material to work with. To be fair, however, I probably could have been more clear about this. I’m really not a writer but was somehow driven to put this work together.
I wonder if you might appreciate my work more if you had more of an understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. Those who have an understanding of both traditions have been aglow with appreciation. So, I hope you might run a draft of your fuller critique by someone with a better understanding before publishing it.
Best wishes…
Layne
Thanks for your civil note, Layne. Given what I wrote, your measured reply does you credit. However, I stand by my remarks. First, a hoax is not necessarily a joke. I don’t treat your work as a joke, but until you wrote this I had thought it might be a “teaching fiction” designed to lead people to Tibetan Buddhism. That you spent fifteen years on it is not to the point if it is a labour of love. Then, speaking of hoaxes in general, sometimes people spend so much time working on them that the amount of effort which has gone into their production is taken as a sign of authenticity, e.g. the Hitler diaries (a leading expert was taken in by them). Having said that, the idea of a hoax had not occurred to me until I came to the Petrie/Skridlov idea which is so preposterous that I started to wonder. Petrie was a eugenist, and a notorious racist. I cannot believe any intelligent person can grasp what Gurdjieff writes about Skridlov and then say it fits Petrie’s life. This is hardly my projection. In a future post I may set out the differences point by point, but it practically insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Just re-read what is in Meetings about Skridlov, and then read an encyclopaedia on Petrie. Further, I set out instances of your errors of logic: that is no projection. I do know enough about Tibetan Buddhism to know that the idea that woman is Gurdjieff’s tulku would never pass the Tibetan tests. More of my critique of your methodology will appear in my academic review.
If people you know were impressed, I say they are wrong. I noted, too, that you disclosed that Yahne Le T. had come to the conclusion Gurdjieff had never set foot in Tibet. Please tell me, did she explain why? She knew Tibetan Buddhism AND Gurdjieff better than most. Her nay outweighs agreement from a thousand who did not know him.
Joseph, you’re missing my point. I want my readers to make their own conclusions and I have no problem with you having the doubts you express. What I object to is you projecting that I believe and present the possible identifications I make as fact when I don’t. I suppose you think that because there is no hard evidence that these possibilities are not worthy of publishing. I disagree. I think being open to them is valuable, and that they merit further research. Whether at some point it is proven or disproven that Petrie is Skridlov is all the same to me. But without such leads being put out there how is that to happen? Suggesting that Gurdjieff may have been known as Urgyen Tag in particular may eventually lead to more concrete evidence surfacing. Regarding specific doubts you have, I’d be open to a talk if you want.
Let me think about it. But you do at times write in the provisional way, and then at other times, you are quite affirmative. Still, I realise you mean well, and you are certainly being decent in this correspondence, so I will ponder the way forward.
Layne, there are certainly striking correspondences between Tibetan Buddhism and Gurdjieff’s Work, no question – more even than you might be aware of, as it is unlikely that you have ever been given any of Gurdjieff’s advanced exercises.
However, we must be aware that Tibetan Buddhism has its origins in the former Uddiyana region, now the Swat Valley and greater area of the Hindu Kush, and that influences included Shaivism, Mahayana Buddhism, and the indigenous Bön tradition, which coalesced in Vajrayana methods and practices. These influences also made their way west and undoubtedly influenced early Sufism, which is why we can see these influences in Sufi-inspired elements of Gurdjieff’s Work, too. Given this, Gurdjieff did not even need to go to Tibet to glean elements of this. Whether he did or did not becomes a moot point.
In relation to all of this, we must point out that the correlations between Tibetan Buddhism and Gurdjieff’s Work do not make them the same. Nor does it mean that Gurdjieff’s Work derived primarily from Tibetan Buddhism. First, the correlations between the Work and Sufism, esoteric Christianity, Kabbalah, are Theosophy are equally compelling. Second, the ultimate conclusion of Tibetan Buddhism—the realisation of non-duality and the ultimate complete dissolution of self—is at odds with Gurdjieff’s Real I. It is at odds with the Work aim of becoming brain-cells of God, droplets in a decanter of water, “particles of the whole of the ‘Reasonable Whole’.”
That said, Dzogchen—especially in Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa’s teachings—does not conclude with mere dissolution but with the simultaneous awareness of duality and non-duality, paralleling Sufi baqa, Kabbalah’s Yesh, Zen’s return to the marketplace of life after enlightenment, and Hinduism’s view of Atman as both distinct from and one with Brahman. This is where I stand on the matter and something you might wish to explore further.
I find that it is this idea of the simultaneity of separateness and wholeness that people cannot get their head around because the ordinary mind cannot grasp it. So, instead, they opt for one end of the stick or the other, hence, all the different schools that argue with each other about the matter when, in truth, they are both wrong and both right, if that makes sense.
My personal view, based on my own experiences, is that Gurdjieff’s Work is both dual (Real Self as a microcosmic reflection of God/Absolute) and non-dual (“there is only One life”, the “All” in “All and Everything,” as you rightly point out), human will and Divine Will becoming One. In relation to this matter, “All and Everything” says it all, in my opinion.
That said, even this formulation sounds dualistic to our ordinary minds – dualism and non-dualism as two sides of a dualistic coin – but it is “above” dualism and non-dualism – a larger Truth that is incomprehensible to the ordinary mind, as said.
I argue that those who propose the complete dissolution of any self into the primal sea of consciousness have missed the point of existence in relation to non-existence – a kind a nihilism or immature wish to climb back into the cosmic womb. In contrast, we have work to do, a purpose in being here, a place in the larger Plan, which makes the former attitude more akin to self-calming. The Bodhisattva Ideal comes closer but still contains the idea that, eventually, we will return to the cosmic womb.
What I appreciated most about your book, Layne, is that it inspired me to research and ponder further. If this was part of your aim, then it was well served.
I came by this discussion as I happened to Google: ‘Gurdjieff Tibet’. I am not a Buddhist nor a follower of the Gurdjieff lines in any way. But as a seeker for many years, I have come to regard the back-stories of various teachers – whether co-opted by themselves or diffused in a way tending towards hagiography by someone from their ‘lineage’ or close circle – with partly skepticism and partly amazement. I cherish both the Tibetan tradition and Mr. G’s “wiseacrings”, and I have had encounters with high teachers from both lines at inner levels, including Mr. G himself. That in itself does not make me proficient in any way to decide whether or not buddhism and 4th way have much in common, but my take is that Mr. G irrespective of whether he made his way into Tibet proper – or like Mrs. Blavatsky most likely only entered the outskirts – he nonetheless absorbed tremendous amounts of what was in the air sts and was able to synthesize it in a manner that not only has bewitched a number of us for an extended period of time, but more importantly; has made us dig even deeper for that dog, that he claimed to have immersed even deeper in the mythic mists of his own research.
In ending I would like to express my delight in reading your back and forth trading of arguments, as well as your cordial civility and lack of expletives. In our crazy World any interaction between opposite views nowadays often tend to result in uncivilized behaviour and general adversity. You have shown absolutely to master the very opposite – congrats on that! And please keep on digging…