22.02.10
The problem with Hinduism
As per the last post I am sorry to pursue a line of critique of Hinduism, and such as line doesn’t really mean what it seems to mean.
If you have followed this blog you may recall our enquiry into the AIT/OIT (Aryan invasion question), then the works of Danielou on the history of Indian religion, and it suddenly became clear that we might have solved the obvious problem stuck in the craw of many Hindu Indian religionists: the Vedic tradition, as Danielou points out, is a late addition and not the source of the great yogic or tantric traditions. This insight is not even controversial really. The term Hinduism itself is very late, almost nineteenth century, and repair of a false tradition would be a lot simpler than one might think. But obvious one of the factors arresting progress is the tradition of caste, Brahminism, the code of Manu, and, finally, somewhat sadly, the impostor tradition of Vedism.
That’s why a way toward the future, like water seeking a path around obstacles, seems to have spawned a future tradition in the Jain cultural context, where the immense obsession and red herring of Hinduism is rendered irrelevant.
grey hat said,
27.02.10 at 12:42 pm
Some thoughts for you.
The attribution of Sufism to the Gurdjieff teachings is a false one. It was created entirely by Idries Shah and his cohorts, as means of exploiting the aspects of “legacy” and “transmission”. Regardless of his reasoning for co-opting the movement, Shah was determined to become the new head or “prophet” and even leveraged his budding support from this community to take control of the Coombe Springs property, which he was given by Bennet for free. He sold the property for 100k sterling a few months later.
Gurdjieff and his teachings are certainly not for everyone, but I was somewhat surprised with how emotionally charged your perspective is. It seemingly borders on pure vitriol. Unfortunately this precludes rational discussion of the matter, IMO. We can attempt it, of course – if you are interested in the possibility of new understanding, either for you or me. Feel free to email me.
Some quick notes I have for you is that I regard G as very much ahead of his time in many aspects, and one of the more impressive examples of those is his artistry; of “meme” creation, propaganda, etc. In particular the synthesis of vast amounts of previous knowledge into a new coherence, AS WELL AS a vibrant living understanding, and a visceral energy of persuasion. I never knew the man personally, and therefore dont consider myself qualified to truly know much about his personality or “what he was like”. I have studied a wide cross-section of first hand accounts by those who did know him personally, and lived with him, etc. I certainly dont consider him a saint, but then again I certainly dont consider him a devil either. He seemed to be one of the first in a new, modern line of trickster teachers. Blavatsky was also a trickster, but much more of a b-rate snake oil gypsy, and not much of a teacher at all. Idries Shah was of this line, but his priorities were different – he was much more concerned with his own personal matters than those of the greater community of knowledge.
I regard Gurdjieff’s works as the penultimate modern representation of this kind of art, the only others in this field I would consider close are Carlos Castaneda, and the Church of the Subgenius. These all could be considered a modern form of thoroughly urgent taoism – the inner alchemical art of self-cultivation.
In all of these works of art produced by these people, there is a deliberate obscuration and deception, as well as a deliberate manipulation. There is also the deliberate effort to arrange things in such a way that anyone who is a blind believer in the system will become utterly and completely ridiculous to everyone else, invalidating their views in the eyes of society. The only way to make effective use of these teachings is a simple “do or die” scenario. The church of the Subgenius takes it further, by having no practical systematic methods per se, as well as an almost impenetrable wall of humor.
The common thread of these systems is the use of both “wholesome” and “unwholesome” methodology. If you wanted to, you could say they bounce between “black” and “white” “magic”. Its dangerous stuff. That is the point, you dont play with fire unless you want to get burned.
You may have realized that disruption of the coherence of your current perspective will threaten its emotionally reinforced (and therefore most likely comfortable) status. If not, you should look into it – this is a handy realization to have.
The Gurdjieff Con » Comment on Gurdjieff/sufism said,
27.02.10 at 1:32 pm
[...] Comments grey hat on The problem with Hinduismbillybob thorton-fireze on Some free advice on ’spiritual paths’billybob thorton-fireze [...]