A new still crude iteration…
Debriefing the Gurdjieff work
A new still crude iteration…
It must be a trick to get my guard down. I have made very clear my brief interaction with sufis (nemonemini.info) and I have no contact or relationship with any such movement about which I have been extremely critical. Someone who naively enters the sufi category can be the object of all sorts of unwanted black magic and I would advise steering completely clear of the whole game…The same for Gurdjieff and EJ Gold spheres. We have already challengedf oshoism/buddhism as ‘zombie’ movements (the osho system barely underway and stopable).
Calling me a sufi is the last laugh joke of a group that is in my experience a malevolent set of dark operators. There be all sorts of nice guy sufis but I have never met any.
Update: wrote another version, then advised to restore original here:
Calling one a sufi is the subtlest tactic of domination by the hidden mafia of ‘sufis’ who also don’t call themselves sufis, preying on the groupies and pious idiots suckered into the ‘path’. The sufi path is so disinfo’d it is virtually impossible to proceed and those who make headway are in my experience psychopaths: all the baraka was given to criminals, fascists, sadists, and reactionaries. I made it clear in the material at nemonemini.info that I was never included in any sufi movement, group, or school although I navigated in proximity to the phony ‘school’ of EJ Gold whose work seems to have been a hidden jewish supremacist attempt to ‘take over’ sufism: his gentile followers were all suckers with the real stuff granted (in my experience) to outside jews, the rest being dupes and canon fodder/food for ‘cannibals’. In any case I consider myself strangely fortunate and it may be no coincidence to have looked into sufism from a good vantage point without any involvement. I got the message, not welcome (the son of a protest minister would be under suspicion of being an honest man). By accident I was in the right place at the right time to be in the ‘soul’ field generation, but the sufis made sure I was to be deprived of that. I suspect that a fascist movement was being generated and I was obviously a kind of liberal and to be avoided.
After that I have been the object of repeated attacks of black magic and attempted murders.
The lesson here is to be wary of sufis. Behind sufism lies a deeper path than, say, buddhism or advaita, in the ‘path’ of the ‘will’, but you can work in that direction as well alone, if you can defeat your own ego, poor chance, but you will never find the source behind sufism. Gurdjieff seems to have thought he found it, but his teaching is a complete hodgepodge…who knows…
Warn beginners away from sufism and move on with nothing. A path can be a liability, a trap to being turned into a workhorse with a collar, meditating to generate energy for vampires in the background.
The path of will has been cluttered with an impostor, the Crowley nonsense. Whatever that was, it died with Crowley who seems not to have understood his own shenanigans.
The path of the will is not about willpower, although that issue is important, of course, and must be a variant of the path of enlightenment. But the whole question is almost hopeless now, so cluttered with gangsters and rogue occultists.
At some point the modern secular enlightenment is going to regenerate its own version of the ‘enlightenment’ path (Schopenhauer in one stroke came close, but couldn’t quite make the last breakthrough) and his work shows the overall form and essence of any and all paths, a problem remaining that his version of the will in nature could be taken as metaphysical: strictly speaking the ‘thing in itself’ is beyond knowledge’.
I fear all the sufi paths are sucker bets in an occult casino and if Gurdjieff is any indication the bigwigs are big devils.
Another upgrade to our blogbook …
The status and critique of the New Age movement tables itself as an issue in the context of the exploitation factor emerging in the wake of the tide of groups and gurus emerging the late sixties and early seventies. The far earlier source of the New Age movement is of course clear from the record, if less clear to contemporary ‘new agers’. We see the onset of the phenomenon in the period of the philosopher Schopenhauer at the beginning of the nineteenth century. There is a consistent strain of skeptical reserve with respect to the authoritarian character of the guru movement, with an attendant but less resolved claim against the realm of the sufis.
The blog The Gurdjieff Con came into existence in 2008 and attempted to expose the contradictions and occult shadow world of the ambiguously sufistic Gurdjieff. This critical stance ultimately resulted in the publication of the work Debriefing Gurdjieffianity as an Amazon Kindle book. We can proceed with a similar work with respect to the more general issue of buddhism, and the realm of the ‘hinduistic’ guruism. Read the rest of this entry »
From a short book on Schopenhauer: robert wicks: Schopenhauer’s the world as will and representation…
It would be easy enough translate the (often confused) advaita into the conceptual framework of schopenhauer and kant. The crooks passed off as gurus in india don’t deserve the respect and allegiance of western seekers.
time to take the legacy beyond india into a global sphere and abandon india to the revolution long overdue….
The indian religious texts contain an amalgam of theistic and non-theistic passages, and if we consider the particular ideas that Schopnehauer extracted from them for citation in World as Will and Representation it is evident that the non-theistic ideas drew his attention. These include 1.the conviction that the ordinary world of trees, rocks, roads, and people is illusory, or dreamlike (Schopenhauer had already absorbed this idea from his readings of Plato, Kant, Shakespeare and Calderon),2. The thought that at the world’s foundation there Is an immediate distinction between its ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ natures (namely the ‘atman’ and the ‘brahman’….
and oshoism is not far behind…
these systems posit the authority of the guru, demand surrender of autonomy, promise then deprive the potential of enlightenment and remainder the given ‘will’ as cannibal food the ‘buddha’ or an elite. The only solution is to step back, as what the path is, enter it alone and realize enlightenment if it exists beyond society and sangha/commune.
There is no reason to ‘surrender the will’ to anyone. The ego is what it is and its destruction is simply an excuse for destruction of the disciple in the slaughter house of the corrupt buddhas.
Our many discussions of the ‘end of history’ question are relevant to the new age ‘fascist’ world that wished to restore the master/slave game to the destruction of modernity. Is the osho commune a party to this? and the buddhist sangha? these religions are obsolete…and the same must be said of hinduism, despite its lack of a clear definition.
A new spirituality might find refuge from rogue buddhists and hyaena sufism via the realm of modern philosophy where schopenhauer created a possible new foundation for something beyond and better than advaita…
It would also be possible to recast bennett’s work in a post-gurdjieffian mode. everything is there for a conception founded in a context of science, if not itself science…
Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy
I find it hard to see how ‘that’ would find me a rival: a sign of ghostly paranoia and the ‘war of the buddhas’. But come to think of it, it is in fact appropriate to create a new path beyond what we see in the legacy….
Since I already speaking as a master of masters (ha ha) this is another hoax to get me to ‘play the game’. I am not a guru and don’t play this game…
a first approach can be Last and First Men: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=9780984702930-LFM_text.pdf: Preface cites the ‘virtual church of the holy brick’….
we need a modern secular post-buddhist, post-xtian, post-islamic association of free men, autonomous with will freed from savior hype and buddha vampires….will discuss further….