There is a pencil marking in the top right hand corner which has the year 1926. I don’t know who added this or when.

First, compare pp.12-13 of the English, where Gurdjieff is speaking about the demands on his pupils. The Russian adds these underlined sentences: “Moreover, he added that his experience showed that people weak in life turn out to be weak in work. This idea, at first glance paradoxical and contrary to many of the established and almost obligatory opinions, strangely corresponded to my own observations and my own experience.“

“… I felt that G. wasn’t telling the whole story about this money. I sensed there was some other purpose here that I couldn’t grasp at the time. Personally, I liked what I heard, since it placed the whole matter on a serious, businesslike basis and immediately freed him from the sentimental element always associated with such ideological undertakings.

Second, in a substantial omission of unclear significance, when Gurdjieff tells Ouspensky that he had told his students to study Ouspensky’s books, and determine what he would find (p.16), Ouspensky adds in the early draft: “I couldn’t help but smile, recalling a letter from a lady I knew in Moscow, which I received, I think, in Madras. She wrote that my entire trip had been completely in vain, because if I were destined to find anything, I would find it in Moscow (my hometown) what I was looking for in India. I smiled because this lady, through other people, had contact with G.’s circle, and such an idea could easily have been implanted in her. It should also be added that it was she who introduced me to M., who brought me to G.”

This of course adds to the extent to which it seems Gurdjieff had been fishing for Ouspensky. But how significant is it?

Third, the early draft skips to what is now on p.20, where Ouspensky asks about whether it helps to learn the tarot. After what is in the book, the early draft has this: “But is there anything in the realm of ordinary knowledge that seems valuable to you and provides some preparation?” I asked.

“It’s hard to say,” said G. “The most useful things are chemistry and hypnotism. Those who know one or the other well have an easier time.“

This reinforces the value of alchemy and hypnotism to Gurdjieff.

Fourth, this interesting personal statement was omitted from the book: “I left for St. Petersburg. I had the idea that I should try something else, do something on my own, before going to G. For many reasons, the main one being, of course, false pride, I wasn’t particularly attracted to the idea of ​​working in his circle. I told myself that working alone, I would accomplish more and understand things faster. In fact, there was something about this idea of ​​working with others that held me back and dampened my enthusiasm for G.”

A few pages later, he has this, also omitted from the book: “He told me in more detail about organizing study groups. And I must say that much of what he said, just as he had in Moscow, insofar as it concerned me personally, I really didn’t like. There was something definitely unpleasant about the idea of ​​study groups for me.“

“Listen, Georgy Ivanovich,” I said. “I’ll organize these study groups for you, but only on the condition that I don’t join them myself. I’ll stand aside.”

“Why?” G. said, looking at me sideways with one of his characteristic glances.

I couldn’t explain it to him. I disliked the thought of being labeled as belonging to some clique. I’d always been a solitary individual, never even a member of any literary group.

“I think I’ll be more useful to you this way,” I said.

G. said nothing, only shook his head, as if perplexed or sorry for me.

Subsequently, my view changed dramatically, then changed again, then changed again, until finally I saw all the sides of what G. was talking about.

This is the background to his statement at p.266: “The first thing I could record was the weakening in me of that extreme individualism which up to that time had been the fundamental feature in my attitude to life.” The omission of the underlined material leaves that comment an orphan, without the material to fully grasp its significance.

Fifth, in between the above conversations, Ouspensky had a conversation with Gurdjieff on the Nevsky Prospekt which is not in ISM: “”Is it worth starting anything here?” I said. “Russia won’t last long; it will collapse. And what will happen after that is impossible to say now. But working here will be impossible, in any case. Wouldn’t it be better to go abroad right away? We could wait out the war somewhere in neutral countries, and then work in London or Paris. All the work here would be in vain.” “Yes, that’s true,” said G., “but since we’ve already started, we’ll continue here for now. While we can still live, there’s no point in thinking about it.“”

It is thought-provoking that Ouspensky omitted this: it would have been a factor in showing his reasonableness and Gurdjieff’s faiure to agree to what he apparently saw was correct. But it all also goes to show how Gurdjieff pursued an ambivalent Ouspensky, and how Ouspensky came to see that Gurdjieff was correct. There was far more tentativeness about Ouspensky’s joining Gurdjieff than the published book discloses.

Sixth and finally, this astounding material was omitted from pp.32-33 of the book (what is not underlined is included for context):

“Crystallization is possible on any basis, take, for example, a robber, a real, good robber. I knew such robbers in the Caucasus. … The other is a monk; he is afraid of the devil, he bangs his head on the floor all night – he prays. This is how crystallization occurs. And in this way people can develop enormous inner strength, they can achieve what they want, they can endure torture. This means that they already have something solid and permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what’s the point, they are an “immortal thing.” Although sometimes they retain some degree of consciousness. So they can knock at spiritualistic seances. He will tell you that he is Alexander the Great or Napoleon. But we must remember that this very rarely happens. Usually all these knocks and conversations are just tricks, a fake, conscious or unconscious.“

This astonished me: Gurdjiff said that sometimes seances do in fact work, they are visited by “immortal things.” Amazing.