05.02.09
Posted in Uncategorized
at 5:09 pm
by nemo
Why pigs don’t have wings
Much of the confusion/debate over New Age issues revolves around evolution, although New Agers tend to be cagey and avoid the kind of direct collision we see with the Bible Belt.
We should be wary of New Age substitutes, but the basic objection stands.
To say that our minds were formed in the Paleolithic, well it may be true, but have a different meaning from what we think it means, as any reader of Bennett’s Dramatic Universe will realize.
But, in any case, by eliminating the crucial issues of human self-consciousness from the portrait of man, Darwinian reductionist evolutionism has alienated an immense number of people, and, fundamentalists apart, rightly so. For this has led to the anti-modernist extremes we see in so many ‘postmodern’ gurus, a tactic concealed in Gurdjieff’s devious version of all that.
Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
at 5:01 pm
by nemo
On Jerry Coyne’s “DOES THE EMPIRICAL NATURE OF SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE REVELATORY NATURE OF FAITH?”
We already referenced this article, with Sam Harris’ contribution, cited in previous post.
The confusions of religion/science are reflected in our discussion here, and are part of the problem being addressed. However, the activities of the gurus/sufis are less than helpful: just at the point where some kind of clarification might help, in the public domain, we have to deal with all the disinformation instead.
Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
at 3:36 pm
by nemo
Sam Harris at Edge.org (unwittingly) makes a statement about our discussion here.
If I have one quibble with Dyson, it is that he has been far too modest in drawing out the implications of his argument. He is, of course, right to declare that “science and religion are here to stay.” But magic is here to stay too, George; Africa is full of it. Is there a conflict between scientific rationality and a belief in magic spells? Specifically, is there a conflict between believing that epilepsy is a result of abnormal neural activity and believing that it is a sign of demonic possession? Dogmatists like Coyne and Dennett clearly think so. They don’t realize, as Dyson must, that the more one understands neurology, the more one will understand—and honor—demonology. Have Coyne and Dennett read the work of sophisticated magicians like Aleister Crowley or Eliphas Levi? Don’t count on it. Ask yourself, how could matter conflict with spirit in any way? Answer: it cannot. Forgive me, but I find it embarrassing to have to explain these things to people who are supposed be well educated.
Permalink
04.02.09
Posted in Uncategorized
at 9:34 pm
by nemo
Looking at Shirley’s book is depressing.
We have our own book here, at least the basis for one to start.
Thus: just a reminder of the Essay series on Gurdjieffianity, which I would like to upgrade to a book, sometime soon when time permits.
The basic issue is to provide a public resource and warning for those who have fallen into/are falling into the trap set by the Gurdjieff corpus. The material on the ‘work’ is mostly a harmless waste of time for most people, but for those real victims of the ‘black magic’ of the ‘system’, dressed in a whore’s garb of sufism, some help is needed.
Ironically the corpus provides its own basis for critique: it is an exploitation of common suggestibility as indicated by Gurdjieff himself.
The basic issue to start is that Gurdjieff was never on the level, as Ouspensky discovered as he broke with ‘g’.
It couldn’t be otherwise. An anti-liberal, anti-modernist, crypto-fascist teaching that has to appeal to modern liberals is formulated to present a come-on for starters with the dark side hidden from view.
Quite apart from anything else, the whole game is metathesizing in the hands of all sorts of people trying to use this material for their own dishonest purposes, figures such as e.g. gold.
The basic and most effective criticism of Gurdjieff is that he is a disguised set of cliches, and has very little to offer as a teaching. There is nothing there, after you penetrate the basic set of junk for what it is (the enneagram, etc, etc…).
One of the most remarkable parallel developments accompanying the rise of modernity has been the emergence of the so-called New Age movement and its immense proliferation of groups and gurus, speaking from a variety of religious traditions. In that context one of the most confusing movements has been that associated with the figure of Gurdjieff and his expositor Ouspensky. The immense influence of the writings of Ouspensky has served uniquely as a promotional literature for a figure whose enigmatic, controversial, and finally shadowy legacy has ended in a kind of limbo, leaving behind a long trail of ‘read the book’ converts, to say nothing of actual victims of that spurious sufistic ‘school’, unable to extricate themselves from the combination of sales pitch and authoritarianism that characterizes the question of the so-called ‘fourth way’. It is notable that, despite a considerable activity, this movement has proven singularly barren in its results, as if the intent behind the public literature had been something else, leaving those attempting to make use of the materials provided paralyzed, and suspicious of a game of disinformation is at work. Followers of this movement demonstrate a frozen character, as if stuck in place, and unable to get beyond the obsessive rereading of the writings of Ouspensky by actually doing something productive. There is another side to this, the increasing realization of the dark side of Gurdjieffian activities, a factor suspected very early on by Ouspensky, who ended, we should recall, by renouncing the ‘work’. Ouspensky in private on several occasions denounced Gurdjieff as a criminal, and the whole initiative has endured as an anomalous puzzle that never quite became a scandal. Few teachers have had the stroke of good fortune to snare a celebrity as good at (unwitting) propaganda for a cause as Ouspensky and the Gurdjieff movement has, strangely, been an overwhelming success at the startup phase and a complete failure in every other respect. Behind that the ominous, almost malevolent character of Gurdjieff himself has significantly poisoned the naive enthusiasm of many of its devoted converts, who cannot seem to snap out of the depiction of purportedly ‘esoteric’ knowledge made public by ‘G’, knowledge that upon examination shows far less substance than is apparent at first encounter. Hopefully this series can help those who begin something amiss to stand up to the pretense of the Gurdjieff work. Many who realize the trap into which they have fallen are too intimidated to deal with the situation.
In fact, there is another dimension to the Gurdjieff escapade, one very difficult to unravel, but leaving those who come across it with a severe case of mixed feelings, even outrage, at the deception perpetrated by this cleverly publicized ‘teaching’. It is important to assist those who become entangled in this already quite old spiritual quagmire so they can move on, and come into the presence of mind to stop saying ‘yes’ to their own exploitation. It can be difficult to penetrate the disguises of Gurdjieff, but in fact enough clues are readily available to do this, by looking at the chronicle of events as given in plain sight, without the confusing deferral to the ‘unknown’ esoteric ‘mumbo jumbo’ said to justify the public action. Movements citing the legacy of ancient wisdom are not exempt from public judgments, nor is the authority of those who proclaim themselves spiritual teachers with self-issued credentials beyond question. One has but to screw up the courage to indulge a healthy skepticism, to demand some answers, or else be finished with a pseudo-school left on automatic pilot to the great profit who those who wish to exploit the suggestibility of the spiritually bewildered. And that temporal remainder is destined to attract many claimants to its succession, shrewd enough to see the windfall in the formulation of spiritual authority concocted by Gurdjieff.
Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
at 7:08 pm
by nemo
More on origins of Sufism
We had a lot on the origins of sufism, here’s an old post from MBFM, on Richard Burton and his book, cited:
two different authors on origins of Sufism:
Richard F. Burton quoted from Sindh and the Races that Inhabit the Valley of the Indus:
‘It is still doubtful whether the source of it may be traced to Persia or to India: the date assigned to the establishment of the community called the Essenis, who may be supposed to have borrowed their mysticism from the Zoroastrians, shows that Central Asia held such tenets at a very early period, and the philosophical works of the Hindoos prove that ancient Indians had made great progress in them. Orthodox Muslims generally trace Tassawuf back to Hindustan….There is certainly a wonderful resemblance between Tassawuf and the Vedantic system, and the modern Indian’s opinions concerning the efficacy of Jog (penance and abstinance) exactly contain the Sufi’s ideas of Riazat. Both believe that by certain superstitious practices, the divinae particula aurae in man so emancipates itself from the tyranny of impure matter that it acquires supernatural powers of metamorphosing the body, transferring the mind to men and beasts, forcibly producing love, causing the death of foes, knowing what is concealed from humanity, seeing spirits, faeries, devils…
‘But’ Burton cautiously concludes ‘human nature always presents a general resemblance; and among similar races, in similar climates, and under similar circumstances, the same developments maybe expected and found to be exhibited. The prudent archeologist will probably be inclined to believe that the tenants of Tassawuf and Vendatism are so consistent with man’s reason, so useful to his interests, and so agreeable to his passions and desires, that thier origin must belong to the dark beginnings of human society.’ (R F Burton, Sindh and the Races that Inhabit the Valley of the Indus pages 199-200 published 1851)
And in 1898, RA Nicholson in his Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz, (RumI) wrote ‘While the vexed problem as to the origins of Sufism
does not call for discussion here, a few remarks concering its historical development and the various elements of which it is composed may be helpful to the student..
‘The early Sufis–they were not yet distinguished by this name–showed, perhaps under Jewish and Christian influence, a strong tedency to asceticism. Self control, self sacrifice, patience, boundless trust in God, all the virtues of a Bernard or Thomas a Kempis animate their zealous and devout, if somewhat narrow and practical aspiration. They were not in opposition to Islam but formed an extreme wing of the Orthodox party. The pantheistic influences in which full-blown Sufism delights are foreign or at least unfamilar to them…This ascetic type belongs especially to the Arab race.
(MBFM comments: These early Arab proto-Sufis sought to adore and submit to God, not aiming to merge with God or discover their essential identity with God. These were dualists)
Nicholson continues:
‘Hand in hand with the Persian revival under the Abbasids came a new current of ideas. Speculation takes bolder flight and essays to reconcile the creature with his Creator, to bridge the Chasm between finite and infinite.Duh l Nun is said to have introduced the doctrine of ecstacies and mystical stages and Sirri Saquati that of unification…Junaid systematized and developed this knowledge and composed writings on the subject. Shibli carried it to the pulpit and proclaimed it openly. In 309 AH (AD 900s) Mansur Hallaj was executed for asserting his identity with God.’
‘Sufism then, is no exotic growth but shoots up like a tender plant in the desert…the rapid expansion of the Mohammedan empire brought about a corresponding diffusion of culture. Greek philosophy was introduced, Aristotle, colored by Alexandrian commentators, appeared in Arabic.(through this diffusion of culture) ‘Zoroastrianism, Buddhistic, Christian and other elements may have gained entrance.
Nicholsen then contended that in the case of Rumi and much Sufi metaphysics resembles key concepts from Plotinus.
Nicholsen, pages xxvii to xxx, introduction to ‘Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz’, published 1898
Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
at 2:59 pm
by nemo
THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM
by Reynold A. Nicholson (1914)
These older texts of sufism are interesting and useful up to a point,
but the subject of sufism tends to induce nausea in many at this point, in the
contrast of love platitudes with the crop of gangster sufis now current.
So we have to ask, what world are these older scholars referring to.
{p. 1}
THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM
INTRODUCTION
THE title of this book sufficiently explains why it is included in a Series ‘exemplifying the adventures and labours of individual seekers or groups of seekers in quest of reality.’ Sufism, the religious philosophy of Islam, is described in the oldest extant definition as ‘the apprehension of divine realities,’ and Mohammedan mystics are fond of calling themselves Ahl al-Haqq, ‘the followers of the Real.’ {Al-Haqq is the term generally used by Sufis when they refer to God.} In attempting to set forth their central doctrines from this point of view, I shall draw to some extent on materials which I have collected during the last twenty years for a general history of Islamic mysticism–a subject so vast and many-sided that several large volumes would be required to do it anything like justice. Here I can only sketch
{p. 2}
in broad outline certain principles, methods, and characteristic features of the inner life as it has been lived by Moslems of every class and condition from the eighth century of our era to the present day. Difficult are the paths which they threaded, dark and bewildering the pathless heights beyond; but even if we may not hope to accompany the travellers to their journey’s end, any information that we have gathered concerning their religious environment and spiritual history will help us to understand the strange experiences of which they write.
In the first place, therefore, I propose to offer a few remarks on the origin and historical development of Sufism, its relation to Islam, and its general character. Not only are these matters interesting to the student of comparative religion; some knowledge of them is indispensable to any serious student of Sufism itself. It may be said, truly enough, that all mystical experiences ultimately meet in a single point; but that point assumes widely different aspects according to the mystic’s religion, race, and temperament, while the converging lines of approach admit of almost infinite variety. Though all the great types of mysticism have something in common, each is marked by peculiar characteristics resulting from the circum-
{p. 3}
stances in which it arose and flourished. Just as the Christian type cannot be understood without reference to Christianity, so the Mohammedan type must be viewed in connexion with the outward and inward development of Islam.
The word ‘mystic,’ which has passed from Greek religion into European literature, is represented in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, the three chief languages of Islam, by ‘Sufi.’ The terms, however, are not precisely synonymous, for ‘Sufi’ has a specific religious connotation, and is restricted by usage to those mystics who profess the Mohammedan faith. And the Arabic word, although in course of time it appropriated the high significance of the Greek–lips sealed by holy mysteries, eyes closed in visionary rapture–bore a humbler meaning when it first gained currency (about 800 A.D.). Until recently its derivation was in dispute. Most Sufis, flying in the face of etymology, have derived it from an Arabic root which conveys the notion of ‘purity’; this would make ‘Sufi’ mean ‘one who is pure in heart’ or ‘one of the elect.’ Some European scholars identified it with «sophós» in the sense of ‘theosophist.’ But Nöldeke, in an article written twenty years ago, showed conclusively that the name was derived from suf (wool), and was originally applied to those Moslem
Permalink
01.02.09
Posted in Uncategorized
at 7:45 pm
by nemo
I was looking at John Shirley’s Gurdjieff…, and note once again the way a writer is snared to do propaganda for Gurdjieff. Such people, as with Ouspensky, are never introduced to any part of the so-called ‘work’ and kept in the dark so they can naively do the promotional work.
A very sad state of affairs, and a waste of people’s potential for any kind of real spiritual path.
Permalink