13.09.09
Madness, but consistent madness
One reason I don’t reject Bennett out of hand is that his account is not a ‘spiritual’ myth, but a Samkhya psychology, which is technically a form of naturalism, or at least a unitary spectrum including the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’ in one system.
The problem is that Bennett’s system is redundant, and succumbs to the design argument, after going to the trouble to producing a form of naturalism.
The issue can be seen from careful study of what he does with the Samkhya gunas, the triads of ‘being, function, will’, entering into a vast cosmic hierarachy of cosmic laws. To suddenly use the design argument on those laws is a violation of his own procedure, to the chaotification of his whole scheme. But I can see the point: he can’t imagine how the cosmic laws could work, so he introduces a design interpretation, to the unending confusion of many readers.
But I can, at least in principle, imagine a set of cosmic laws that follow the original Samkhya scheme, and the way in which these are beyond the distinctions of ‘mechanical/conscious’, giving them a strange and uniquely potent form as ‘generators’ in relation to evolution.
In principle! In practice, the whole thing is close to a form of madness, but at least as a model put on paper it is a consistent brand of madness.
James said,
15.09.09 at 10:29 am
One great thing about the Samkhya/Patanjali(divested of the misleading commentaries) is that it offers some sort of ontology (it is probably better if you ditch the preposterous emanationist scheme and focus on the basic framework) and distinguishes between awareness(no causal efficacy) and the unity of consciousness/materiality(part of prakriti). In that way, it is a lot clearer than the Pali sutras which are more epistemological in orientation. I’ve often tried to bring this point up with Theravadin Buddhists only to end up jumping into a bunker since this is considered taboo. Most of them are just content to kill off more and more brain cells with useless debates about “anatta” (obviously seems to be some sort of pragmatic apophatic meditation technique in the early suttas rather than a metaphysical statement). Take a look at a look at this useless debate over the term vinnanam anidassanam(obviously seems to refer to some unconditioned awareness outside of the skandhas) and whether it contradicts the the Abhidhamma:
http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=10
Note that Patanjali spells it out:
“Then, pure awareness can abide in its very nature.”
“Otherwise, awareness takes itself to be the patterns of consciousness.”
http://www.arlingtoncenter.org/Sanskrit-English.pdf
The Gurdjieff Con » Samkhya history said,
15.09.09 at 12:16 pm
[...] Comment on Bennett’s Samkhya James said, 15.09.09 at 10:29 am · One great thing about the Samkhya/Patanjali(divested of the misleading commentaries) is that it offers some sort of ontology (it is probably better if you ditch the preposterous emanationist scheme and focus on the basic framework) and distinguishes between awareness(no causal efficacy) and the unity of consciousness/materiality(part of prakriti). In that way, it is a lot clearer than the Pali sutras which are more epistemological in orientation. I’ve often tried to bring this point up with Theravadin Buddhists only to end up jumping into a bunker since this is considered taboo. Most of them are just content to kill off more and more brain cells with useless debates about “anatta” (obviously seems to be some sort of pragmatic apophatic meditation technique in the early suttas rather than a metaphysical statement). Take a look at a look at this useless debate over the term vinnanam anidassanam(obviously seems to refer to some unconditioned awareness outside of the skandhas) and whether it contradicts the the Abhidhamma: [...]