26.01.11 at 6:30 pm · Not a fan of astrology, but the story is wrong. Signs are based on seasons, not constellations:
The question of astrology is a quagmire for New Agers, as a species of marketing vultures tries to amass a series of hyped categories to their ‘New Age’ brand, crystals to yoga mats to the astrological.
Beyond that we have discussed the issue many times here in terms of world history and the confusion created by ideas of ages and epochs based on the zodiac. In every case they fail because the cyclical period is too short.
Bennett also confuses his DU with the precession of the equinoxes for his discussion of age periods. But if you look closely he realizes it won’t work and fudges his statements to see the real ‘new age’ of modernity. Bennett is remarkable for almost seeing the eonic effect: he had the Axial Age, modernity, but not quite the Sumer/Egypt transitions. But, still, he saw the basic point, but still used the precession intervals in the background. He must have thought his readers wouldn’t notice, or else he was still confused himself.
The issue here as noted is the attempt to create a new age that postdates modernity to issue a postmodern ‘new beginning’ that can justify traditionalist attacks on modernity. It is a mistaken and/or fraudulent strategy. And the idea of an Aquarian New Age is pure baloney, one that dies hard.
Again, Bennett contradicted himself and saw, as few have seen, that modernity and the Axial Age were in a sequence. That he still applied the precession cycles to that was a muddle that may have wrecked his book. Ironically, his endorsement of modernity on those and other grounds was a source of tension with his followers and New Agers in general.
The reason this persists is that people have often felt that history was cyclical, but they always got it wrong, especially in they used astrology.
Check out my eonic effect: once all the obsessions here fall away we can on quite different empirical grounds that world history falls naturally into three epochs, as I describe them. Why that is we don’t know, but the data suggests it.
As Bennett began to realize, contra Gurdjieff, modernity was a perfectly good ‘new agte’ that began in the sixteenth century and which created a potential for new religions beyond the Axial brands.
One of the suspicions about Gurdjieff is that he is warning Westerners about the barrenness of Occidental monotheism and creating a sly brand of Eastern spirituality that is camouflaged as ‘esoteric Christianity’, that non-starter. But the result seems to compound the confusion by injecting a kind of concealed nihilism, and ‘strain of evil’ that derails in ‘still no path’.
Perhaps a similar statement applies to Sufism.
It is very hard for Westerners to create a real spiritual path, and one of the reasons is the totalitarian character of Christianity, along with its antagonism to any kind of spiritual practice as gnosticism.
A recent book, The Spiritual Brain, unwittingly gave the game away: desperate to exhibit the issue of higher consciousness as a challenge to materialistic neuroscience, their by-the-book Xtianity wouldn’t let them so much as mention, say, Buddhism, or the term ‘enlightenment’. So they referenced a totally obscure group of nuns from a convent in Israel.
Creating a real spiritual practice in a Christian culture, the attempt to do so, can be instructive: it is an ironic way to step backwards into the occult zone as the ghosts of dead spirit cops and their angelic host of feeding frenzy higher spirits descend on the practitioner to destroy such paths, and get the poor sod trying to awken back to sleep in his Xtian pew.
Christians are obsessed about ‘god’, but as the New Atheists come to fore (I don’t approve or agree with them) fed up with religion (meaning Xtianity), the ironic issue is not the unknowable ‘god’, but the zone of spirits in the grey zone, clearly referenced in older forms of the religion, indicating a massive middle zone where the religionist is helpless to proceed.
There are umpteen versions of this, none of them knowable science, but found by those who learn the hard way.
(Cf. Bennett and his ‘demiurgic powers’. But you would never interact with these.)
That was my point, or suspicion, about the fake paths starting in the seventies with Gold, Da free john, then Lozowich, and others, finally Andrew Cohen.
We can see that these ‘spirits’ we suspect have often appeared as human ‘gurus’ in sufism and now in Xtian countries, part Indic in profile, but really monotheistic lobotomy cults. Recall Da Free John’s attack on the search. Even meditation was undermined, and all you could do was admire the shitty asshole of the Numero Uno.
More generally Christian conversion is a poor deal: you give up everything and get nothing in return but saying your prayers to skies, which aint listening.
Five thousand page views yesterday, which broke all records here for one day traffic.
We must be onto something. I hope by next week to get back in the grove of posting, and we can pursue some projects on the question of Gurdjieff and the insidious side to monotheism, as it warps on contact all Eastern religious paths.
Does Andy, quite the ‘postmodern pete’, advocate the postmodern destruction of modern rights and liberties, and, like Gurdjieff, the restoration of slavery??
Important question the postmod gurus peddle the ‘New Age’ forget to answer.
If the answer is Yes, then Mr. Cohen is a true reactionary.
If the answer is No, then he advocates spiritual disobedience against a said guru, Gurdjieff. Since Gurdjieff advocted absolute obedience (reread that ABSOLUTE obedience) Mr. Cohen therefore advocates disobedience against a least one guru, and should clarity which ones he thinks aren’t complete assholes, a difficult task for a postmodern asshole like him.
Since people who get into the Gurdjieff work and then ‘disobey’ often get ‘killed in action’ beynd the public’s awareness, these issues remain important.
Astrological storm after suggestion zodiac signs are wrong
One of the things New Agers need to do is to distance themselves form astrological traditions, pronto.
We should also note that much ‘new age’ nonsense is built around the expected Aquarian phase of the old Zodiac. That was always a crock, and it has confused and discredited the real New Age movement.
Btw, Andrew Cohen’s attack on me is related to this: the postmodern age of Aquarius, and all that. A real crock.
Living Enlightenment: A Call for Evolution Beyond Ego [Paperback]
Wilber and Cohen between them have produced a false and confused teaching, and the question is what to do about it? ???
I will have to review this book, but the title shows the mistake.
It is misleading to say that you evolve beyond ego. The space-time evolution of the organism coming into being has the potential to realize itself beyond the ego. But the emergence of ego is the evolution, not the other way around.
You don’t evolve beyond ‘ego’. You realize that you are larger than ego, this already the case. You are ALREADY so evolved, all you have to do realize it, by understanding it. The latter language has been repeated ad infinitum by many who don’t understand it, so let’s take an example, scroll down here, for a quote about Schopenhauer:
Here is the quote: use this passage to try and understand ‘default philosophic enlightenment’, which is a token of a deeper enlightenment, unknown. But the philosophic version came help to get the mind in line, at least. It is simple: you are a larger entity that your spacetime representation.
You need to simply realize that fact. You don’t evolve toward it.
The deeper enlightenment that realizes all this in the ‘gut’ beyond mind is indicated in the traditions, but the depiction is suspiciously off the mark in a manifold of cases, making one suspicious few understand the basic idea anymore. ‘Default philosophic enlightenment’ can help to prepare the mind to proceed.
Schopenhauer’s philosophy often gives the impression of having been composed expressly for the purpose of reconciling the phenomenal will to the inevitability of death. All the apparatus of his main treatise, the fundamental distinction between the world as Will and representation, the concept of thing-in-itself as beyond the principium individuationis, and fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason, can be understood as contributing to a moral, metaphysical and mystical religious recognition that death is nothing real and hence nothing to fear. If Schopenhauer is correct, he proves that death is not an event, and hence altogether unreal. Death is not an event in the world as representation, but is rather an endpoint or limit of the world as representation, and in particular in the first-person formulation as my representation. The world as representation begins and ends with the consciousness of the individual representing subject. At the moment of death, all representation comes to an immediate abrupt end, after which there remains only thing-in-itself. An individual’s death is not something that occurs in or as any part of the world as representation. Nor can death possibly be in or a part of the world as thing-in-itself or Will. There are no events or individuated occurrences, nothing happening in space or time, for thing-in-itself, and in particular there is no progressive transition from life to death or from consciousness to unconsciousness. If with Schopenhauer we assume that there exists only the world as representation and as thing-in-itself interpreted as Will, then there is no place on either side of the great divide for death, no possibility for the existence or reality of death.
I haven’t said so, but you force my back to the wall. I have answered this indirectly already, after the fashion of Rajneesh’s statements a generation ago: he made all his students give up their old identities and become New Men/Women with new names. The explosion of ex-Jews was dramatic, it should be noted.
So the question has no answer: if it has come to that then the Western New Age movement is dead.
If the question is asked at all, then the answer is obvious. I can’t answer it, but I can say that a lot of frustrated Gentiles are realizing they have been conned three times in a row by the ambition of certain Jews to take over the guru game and get rid of Indians in the West. Three fakes in a row, Gold, Lozowick, and Andrew Cohen, once you realize the deeper connection, is enough to make angry Gentiles hopeless about starting over. We can see these Jews would never let a Gentile reach enlightenment. So the answer is….
Gentiles should politely realize they are at best bench warmers in this game, and move on.
I think one day a real Buddha, partly ex-Jewish will appear, but til then these disgusting fakes are dangerous. Andrew Cohen is the most dangerous because he is not easy to grasp as a fake. Jews are very talented people, but they are obsessed with the ‘chosen few’ syndrome and couldnt’ ever bring themselves trust Gentiles.
Cohen can’t even produce a literature explaining what the path is supposed to be. If you read his magazine you can see that he is hiding behind the diagrams and fancy print job, and the Ken Wilbur excuse to play guru (dumb) to the pandit
To be fair,the Da Free John phase wasn’t any better. The whole thing is a botch stretched over forty years since the early 70’s.
Meanwhile, if coyote 4 thinks Jews are bad, Gentiles could be worse. So without either Jewish or Gentile gurus, well, the game is over, jig’s up.
This goes deeper than the question of Jews, please. A nearly identical problem lurks in sufism. The occult game we sense is of something very high and demonic trying to foist monotheism onto Indian spirituality, slowly neutralizing its liberation potential, and slipping theism into the mix. If you see what happened in the overlap of Islam and Indian religion where the monotheists felt the need to compete with the high-powered Indic tradition, the clever neutralization via sufistic so-called esotericism, etc, is what we are seeing with the Andrew Cohen fake. Cohen seems like a Manchurian candidate unable to grasp his position.
You watch the New Age movement will get turned into a theistic fake path that doesn’t allow enlightenment, or even mention it.
Let note that Gold can’t really be attacked on his Jewishness: his ‘evil demon’ game comes from Sufism via Gurdjieff. No Jew would dare do his number on Jewish terms, it would start a pogrom. So Gold isn’t really Jewish anymore. We tried last week to find a devil’s name for him, but didn’t find one.
It is time to get past gurus. The claim that a guru is needed is the royal road to exploitation. Rajneesh, btw, made it clear that he never had a guru.
Stay away then from these fakes. they have wasted the lives of all the people around them.
Again, let me note Rajneeh’s injunction to become a new person on the path. If you haven’t learned yet, Mr. Gold and/or his backers will soon provide a fourth fake.
We know better here. I failed to mention at Darwiniana that many invisible Jews, witness EJ Gold, are closet supporters of the Holocaust.
Cohen’s evolution theme is too cowardly to specify any degree of anti-Darwinism, no doubt to preserve his small market share. So he must hypocritically take evolution, even as he never says anything against Darwinism. Blavatsky was at least clear on this.
The result is a toxic confusion that will end up perverting his teaching, assuming he has one,which is a big assumption indeed.
The stuff on Andrew Cohen should help to explain why I am gunshy of that creep, and his sidekick Wilbur, who tried to warn Cohen of his postmodern fixation with some postpostmodern jawboning, attempting to save the day.
I think my material on the postmodern fallacy has helped many in the New Age movement slip away from false guides, and to fix their attention on real issues.
Look at Rajneesh: he was critical of modernity, but he never indulged in attacks on modern core values. The attempt of people like Cohen to attack me, over and over again, because I don’t accept postmodernism, is so grotesque it is unbelivable. The real Indian tradition is eminently compatible with modernity.
Ten years of that voodoo (no doubt from some source behind him using him as a front, Cohen is too much of an idiot to do voodoo games, unlike EJ Gold) is enough, and I have survived it in style, along with the gangster crowley magic of Gold.
This just shows how limited Cohen’s thinking is. How did someone so stupid get the booby prize.
The real New Age movement started in the Enlightenment, with figures like Herder, and then Schopenhauer. It was probably destroyed by figures like Blavatsky and Gurdjieff who introduced the black magic of fascist operators that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century.
There is no postmodern New Age of Aquarius to signal a flight from modernity controlled by fascist gurus. Forget it.
From Darwiniana: the damage done by science to the understanding of religion is here in evidence. Perhpas the author is being cunning.
Eastern religions By ASTO
Added: Monday, 10 January 2011 at 1:27 PM
This is a totally wrong-headed perspective induced by scientism. Buddhism, setting aside Hinduism and its complications for a moment, is one of the most classic evolutionary transforms of world religion form the Axial Age. For Dawkins style idiots to pontificate here is ridiculous, and shows the harm done by current scientific stupidity.
I come from a Hindu tradition and have studied most of eastern religions, before studying western ones. Through my higher education and, knowledge of physics in particular, I could find my way out of all religions. But I strongly feel that eastern religions, Hinduism or Buddhism in particular, due to their much deeper philosophical basics, are much more difficult to be debated against than Christianity or Islam. I take my Hindu friends down very easily by pointing out the real life atrocities, such as caste system, practiced in the name of religion. But I find myself weaponless when I have to attack the fundamental of Hinduism. For example, the god described in the fundamental Hinduism is almost as abstract as the current ‘philosophy’ of modern Physics (I am doing a physics PhD at Caltech). He doesn’t punish people, he doesn’t want to be worshiped, he doesn’t send you to hell ; he is just there as a pure consciousness out of which human consciousness is born and only person-like attribute he has is, that, he “wants” you to perform your duties (Karma). How do you take issues with such a god? Don’t you think it’s much difficult than to speak against Christian or Islamic gods?
I have always hoped to see blows on these religions by Prof Dawkins or other celebrated leaders of reasoning, but I haven’t found many. We can’t ignore them as they make half the world population
Am I right in these observations? Is it true that eastern religions indeed stand on a firmer ground of basic philosophy than the western ones? I am not very sure but it seems plausible..
I am sorry for the harsh judgments, but the situation requires clarity, and beginners need a warning to steer clear of the Gurdjieff work.
It is a fraud designed to attract, and to put the beginner in a dependent situation, where he can be hypnotized at will, to serve the ‘work’, that occult concept of black magic.
Study paths that do it right: they define the path, the goal, the means, the companions, and the teachers. Buddhism does this. Rajneesh does this. Many others. But Gurdjieff, and certainly Gold, do not do this. And Sufis, by and large, do not do this.
Note that enlightenment is never mentioned by Gurdjieff, or Gold, or the Sufis. These are gnostic stream cabals, whose deep significance is unknown, at least to me, but whose action is like all the elements of the Axial monotheisms: obscure, esoteric, mesmerizing, socially dominating, redemptive in quotation marks, but not in practice, ie. sheep herding orgs.
In a strange way, by spilling the beans Gurdjieff spoiled his effort and exposed monotheism in the sense of organized religions.