27.08.09
James, Bennett, and Pali Buddhism
I was amused, and pleased in fact, that in trying to discuss Bennett’s thinking in The Dramatic Universe, James appears to have ‘counterattacked’ with some material on Pali Buddhism. An apt rejoinder, and welcome here.
I can tip my hat to James, and recommend Pali Buddhism myself (although I don’t endorse anything at this point anymore), and proceed to an abbreviated look at Bennett.
So we can also continue with a brief look at Bennett, taken critically. It might help to jump to vol 4 and critique his views on evolution, which are quite exotic.
The question of Bennett’s system is a controversial one, and since this is The Gurdjieff Con blog, it is appropriate to include a critique of Bennett’s systematics, which was our declared intent from the beginning.
Bennett is not a con man, but a kind of superintelligent geek who was spotted by some hidden sufis and dosed with a kind of ‘speed’ that made his mind race at a hundred miles per hour for a thousand pages of what is finally, well, junky. But a few fragments stand out as questions, and ideas of possible value. A total rejection of his work would not be credible, and it is by acknowledging some value in his effort that a critique comes into being.
But Bennett, as MBFM pointed out, was really a victim of the Gurdjieff Con, and an immensely intelligent whiz kid who nearly succeeded in rewriting the ancient Samkhya for modern times. In the process the project got melded, and quite ruined, by its assoication with Gurdjieff. Contact with Gurdjieff turned his brain into mush, and it is hard to sort out the whole thing.
The result in his masterwork is a combination of pure crap with brilliant insights. The result is also, ironically, a way to challenge Gurdjieff on his own ground, since it is not clear from what Gurdjieff said just what he meant, or whether he was telling the truth or telling lies.
Thus Bennett unwittingly upstaged him, and you can defend yourself quite handily using Bennett against Gurdjieff.
Gurdjieff and most sufis are too stupide to produce a spiritual psychology of any value, and Bennett’s work, despite is incorrect foundations and almost drunken rationality on speed, voids most previous efforts.
Except, most amusingly, the realm of Pali Buddhism!
There is something depressing about this failed project: we could have had a clarification of a Samkhya spirituality for modern man: instead we got a Gurdjieff cannibal racket grafted onto a fourth way myth, reprocessed by Bennett as a scholarly book that starts to turn into science fiction.
Anyway, a look at his ‘being function will’ matrix of human psychology, and some of his evolutionary discussions in vol 4 can round out our discussion here and provide critics of Gurdjieff with some solid ground and an amusing way to pull rank on these mystifiers.
James said,
28.08.09 at 5:15 pm
“I was amused, and pleased in fact, that in trying to discuss Bennett’s thinking in The Dramatic Universe, James appears to have ‘counterattacked’ with some material on Pali Buddhism. An apt rejoinder, and welcome here.”
Hey, no nothing like that. I think Bennett’s book is fascinating and the man obviously had a genius level intellect (unfortunately, I guess he went off the rails).
Actually, my criticisms were levelled more against the Western “spiritual” scene than anything. I’m just tired of the kneejerk dogmatic postmodern ecumenicalism that has infected every level of discourse here (in every aspect of modern life for that matter). It is certainly welcome as a dialectical possibility, but this is seen as the most “enlightened” and only approach nowadays. Consequently, it is almost impossible to establish any sort of ethical or intellectual standards and the result is that a lot of people end up getting hurt. Postmodernism had its chance and it has been a failure (we should be thankful that it opened up people’s minds to new possibilities, but there are better ways to do that). We need people to speak out and not just kowtow to these absurd and childish New Age cliches (i.e. critical thinking abilities are a sign of the “dualistic mind”).
James said,
28.08.09 at 5:20 pm
“There is something depressing about this failed project: we could have had a clarification of a Samkhya spirituality for modern man:”
While I’m at it, I’m also tired of these stupid Vedantists coopting Samkhya and Patanjali. Patanjali was not a monist, so someone should inform them that they should abandon the Yoga Sutra.
The Gurdjieff Con » Two comments from James said,
29.08.09 at 11:44 am
[...] Two comments from James on James, Bennett, and Pali Buddhism [...]