In Search of the Miraculous

self-observation and self-study it is necessary to divide oneself. A man must realize

that he indeed consists of two men.

"One is the man he calls 'I' and whom others call 'Ouspensky,' 'Zakharov' or

'Petrov.' The other is the real he, the real I, which appears in his life only for very short moments and which can become firm and permanent only after a very lengthy

period of work.

"So long as a man takes himself as one person he will never move from where he is. His work on himself starts from the moment when he begins to feel two men in

himself. One is passive and the most it can do is to register or observe what is

happening to it. The other, which calls itself 'I,' is active, and speaks of itself in the first person, is in reality only 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov' or 'Zakharov.'

"This is the first realization that a man can have. Having begun to think correctly he very soon sees that he is completely in the power of his 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov,' or

'Zakharov.' No matter what he plans or what he intends to do or say, it is not 'he,' not

'I,' that will carry it out, do or say it, but his 'Ouspensky' 'Petrov,' or 'Zakharov,' and of course they will do or say it, not in the way 'I' would have done or said it, but in their own way with their own shade of meaning, and often this shade of meaning

completely changes what 'I' wanted to do.

"From this point of view there is a very definite danger arising from the very first moment of self-observation. It is 'I' who begins self-observation, but it is immediately

taken up and continued by 'Ouspensky,' 'Zakharov,' or 'Petrov.' But 'Ouspensky'

'Zakharov,' or 'Petrov' from the very first steps introduces a slight alteration into this self-observation, an alteration which seems to be quite unimportant but which in

reality fundamentally alters the whole thing.

"Let us suppose, for example, that a man called Ivanov hears the description of this method of self-observation. He is told that a man must divide himself, 'he' or 'I' on one side and 'Ouspensky,' 'Tetrov,' or 'Zakharov' on the other side. And he divides himself

literally as he hears it. 'This is I,' he says, 'and that is "Ouspensky," "Petrov," or

"Zakharov."' He will never say 'Ivanov.' He finds that unpleasant, so he will inevitably use somebody else's surname or Christian name. Moreover he calls 'I' what he likes in

himself or at any rate what he considers to be strong, while he calls 'Ouspensky,'

'Petrov,' or 'Zakharov' what he does not like or what he considers to be weak. On this

basis he begins to reason in many ways about himself, quite wrongly of course from

the very beginning, since he has already deceived himself in the most important point

and has taken not his real self, that is, he has taken, not Ivanov, but the imaginary

'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov' or 'Zakharov.'

"It is difficult even to imagine how often a man dislikes to use his own

name in speaking of himself in the third person. He tries to avoid it in every possible

way. He calls himself by another name, as in the instance just mentioned; he devises

an artificial name for himself, a name by which nobody ever has or ever will call him,

or he calls himself simply 'he,' and so on. In this connection people who are

accustomed in their mental conversations to call themselves by their Christian name,

or surname or by pet names are no exception. When it comes to self-observation they

prefer to call themselves 'Ouspensky' or to say 'Ouspensky in me,' as though there

could be an 'Ouspensky' in them. There is quite enough of 'Ouspensky' for Ouspensky

himself.

"But when a man understands his helplessness in the face of 'Ouspensky' his

attitude towards himself and towards 'Ouspensky' in him ceases to be either

indifferent or unconcerned.

"Self-observation becomes observation of 'Ouspensky' A man understands that he

is not 'Ouspensky,' that 'Ouspensky' is nothing but the mask he wears, the part that he

unconsciously plays and which unfortunately he cannot stop playing, a part which

rules him and makes him do and say thousands of stupid things, thousands of things

which he would never do or say himself.

"If he is sincere with himself he feels that he is in the power of 'Ouspensky' and at the same time he feels that he is not 'Ouspensky.'

"He begins to be afraid of 'Ouspensky,' begins to feel that he is his 'enemy.' No

matter what he would like to do, everything is intercepted and altered by 'Ouspensky.'

'Ouspensky' is his 'enemy.' 'Ouspensky's' desires, tastes, sympathies, antipathies,

thoughts, opinions, are either opposed to his own views, feelings, and moods, or they

have nothing in common with them. And, at the same time, 'Ouspensky' is his master.

He is the slave. He has no will of his own. He has no means of expressing his desires

because whatever he would like to do or say would be done for him by 'Ouspensky.'

"On this level of self-observation a man must understand that his whole aim is to

free himself from 'Ouspensky.' And since he cannot in fact free himself from