06.29.13

Dalai Lama, marxism, and the dark past of esoteric buddhist fascism

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:29 am

http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2013/06/29/occupy-buddhism-or-why-the-dalai-lama-is-a-marxist/

I hope it is true: I have therefore been unfair to the Dalai Lama here, a number of times. But I think that the dark past of Tibetan Buddhism and its suspected esoteric fascism is something he is oblivious about. I think that the hints of dissent in the background are a reminder of what is really the case about Tibetan buddhists.
This blog has pioneered a study of the Indian Gita with its history of Buddhism, in the post-Axial Age. The later change in Tibetan Buddhism is therefore an anomaly.

We can’t therefore just taken the Dalai Lama at face value. The use of a front to say one thing, and the occult mind control used to create fascists beside, make hopes of a marxist buddhist unlikely, be forewarned. But the Dalai lama can exert at least some influence here.

The remarks of Zizek are mostly marxist cliches. Zizek is probably more withdrawn than most buddhists.

In fact, although it requires a careful consideration, the stance of world renunciation is not in contradictory to the stance of world involvement. If you are enlightened…!

Being a marxist sympathizer comes cheap. It is important to study the way that leftists/socialists were turned into fascists in the generation of Mussolini. A buddhist left would not last long. And we suspect esoteric buddhism had a connection here, although the correct proof is not there.

Occupy Buddhism Or Why the Dalai Lama is a Marxist

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:23 am

http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/occupy-buddhism?page=0,0

Marx’s Revenge

When the Dalai Lama announced his Marxist leanings last summer in Minneapolis, the only surprise was how surprising it was. The blogosphere was once again astir with this nonrevelation, which came by way of an Indian-born Tibetan journalist, Tsering Namgyal, who had tagged along when the Dalai Lama held a nearly three-hour meeting with 150 Chinese students. Namgyal, a Mandarin-speaking reporter living and studying in Minneapolis, had posted online that the Dalai Lama surprised his young audience when he volunteered that “as far as sociopolitical beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist.”

Namgyal’s post explained that a student had asked about the apparent contradiction between the Dalai Lama’s economic philosophy and Marx’s critique of religion. The Dalai Lama’s understanding was more nuanced than the responses of most of the bloggers who jumped on the story: he suggested that Marx was not actually against religion or religious philosophy per se but “against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx’s time, with the European ruling class.” (That would be the capitalist class.) The three-hour exchange was probably not designed for political sound bites. The year before the Dalai Lama had given a series of talks in New York at Radio City Music Hall. Following a press conference in the basement at Rockefeller Center, the Dalai Lama’s news office included this report in its summary:

His Holiness said when he was in China in 1954–55, the Communist Party of China was really wonderful, and the Party members were really dedicated to the service of the people. His Holiness said he was very much impressed and told Chinese officials about his desire to join the Party. His Holiness said he still is a Marxist (although some of his friends ask him not to mention that) and he admired its objective of equal distribution (“this is moral ethics”). His Holiness however talked about the clampdown after the Hundred Flowers Campaign [1957] in China itself and said any authoritarian system always subdues any force that has the potential to stand up to it.

You might think he had his thoughts on the 99 percent, but the Dalai Lama has stayed on message for years, saying the same thing many times in many places—including a Time magazine interview in 1999, and in the following passage from Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, in 1996:

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned with only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production

It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair…

The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

So what’s all the fuss? Marx might still be an inspirational hero for the odd revolutionary in Peru or Nepal, but communism these days is generally summarized as a failed system that crashed and burned. So why this repeated hysteria about Marx? And why now?
more…at link

06.21.13

Issues of religion, evolution and design arguments

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:51 am

http://darwiniana.com/2013/06/21/reading-darwins-doubt-the-need-to-study-whee-to-sort-out-design-confusions-next-to-darwinian-confusions/

06.20.13

It is a form of evil to experiment on ‘disciples’

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:10 pm

http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2011/07/18/expose-of-ej-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-41474
The whole game is a horror: Gold does something that is evil: experiments on the usnsuspecting. The response to critics is ‘Do what thous wilt’, bullshit.

Warn people to not consnet to consent to anything, in a non-surrender. Once you are fooled into thinking this is classical guruism with its counself of trust and surrender the jig is up.

We need to wrap up the Gurdjieff Con and move on to real paths not being run by devils in disguise.

Pope Paul’s canonization idiocy

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:14 pm

http://darwiniana.com/2013/06/20/pope-pauls-miracles-are-you-guys-kidding-is-it-time-to-shut-down-the-vatican-mafia/

06.18.13

The issues of human evolution, a repost from Darwiniana

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:25 am

If Apes Could Talk to Atheists: How Religious Life Has More to Do With Animal Instinct Than You’d Think
Frans De Waal’s new book, “The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates” hits some hot button issues.
http://www.alternet.org/books/bonobo-and-atheist-review?paging=off


This article at Alternet is a good moment to challenge Franz de Waal’s bad science, and, since he takes on the New Atheists, the confusion of the secular humanists also.
De Waals, like so many in the field of biology, lives in a Darwinian cocoon, and never really encounters the critiques of that theory, a theory so entrenched that scholars in the dozens embark on research careers based on false premises. It is not a plus in his book that he takes on the New Atheists, as I do, because his own assumptions aren’t very different, and, as with Dawkins, his views of religion are based on Darwinism, a pseudo-science. Mr. De Waals, Darwinism is a pseudo-science.
Read the rest of this entry »

06.16.13

Dangerous black magic in elite so-called esoteric groups

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:48 am

I am sorry to be hard on E. J. Gold, but the whole Gurdjieff legacy is even worse than the Tibetan. At least the standard of a ‘path to enlightenment’ is used (and then undermined) to give a rough measure of a path. But with these so-called sufis there is not declaration of intent, nothing. Gurdjieff via Ouspensky actually tried to provide a come-on substitute. But look carefully, it amounts to very little. And note the way Enlightenment is never mentioned in the whole corpus.

The figure of Gurdjieff may help to understand the Tibetan. Gurdjieff as local vehicle for a ‘beelzebub’ X factor, who is able to reincarnate over time, but who is a demonic closure around something unknown, but ominous: a sort of damned figure who is in a kind of reincarnational limbo, unable to manifest as the real buddhas, stuck thus in samsaara.
This phenomenon of Gurdjieff may explain what it happening with the closed elite of Tibetan lamas, and the figures they have to recruit and train to be their supposed ‘reincarnations’.

Gold is a hard to figure interloper here who has never clarified what he is doing, never, bullshit always, produced no real students, and staged the ‘thieves of baraka’ syndrome I have talked off before. He is truly dangerous when he uses occult mind control and produces melt downs in anyone who starts to make spiritual progress…. He seems to do Crowley ‘magick’ is disguise, and will try to create your own personal ‘scandal’ blowout without your quite realizing he is doing anything. He is truly insidious, and yet he is pegged as some successor to Gurdjief, god forbid.

Beware of all these people. you are on your own in the end. And it might be helpful if none of these demons have ever heard of you. disavow allegiance and seek refuge near trustworthy spiritual sources (for what it is worth).
(This is a little unfair to Tibetans, who will off some kind of refuge, and do no more than ‘fix’ you as an inert boddhissatwa).

Sufis, Tibetans, and the hint given by Gurdjieff

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:28 am

I am sorry to be hard on E. J. Gold, but the whole Gurdjieff legacy is even worse than the Tibetan. At least the standard of a ‘path to enlightenment’ is used (and then undermined) to give a rough measure of a path. But with these so-called sufis there is not declaration of intent, nothing. Gurdjieff via Ouspensky actually tried to provide a come-on substitute. But look carefully, it amounts to very little. And note the way Enlightenment is never mentioned in the whole corpus.

The figure of Gurdjieff may help to understand the Tibetan. Gurdjieff as local vehicle for a ‘beelzebub’ X factor, who is able to reincarnate over time, but who is a demonic closure around something unknown, but ominous: a sort of damned figure who is in a kind of reincarnational limbo, unable to manifest as the real buddhas, stuck thus in samsaara.
This phenomenon of Gurdjieff may explain what it happening with the closed elite of Tibetan lamas, and the figures they have to recruit and train to be their supposed ‘reincarnations’.

Suspicions about the Tibetan legacy

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:22 am

I remain puzzled by the commentary over Chogyam Trungpa. Of all the things to discuss, jusfifying his legacy seems to take the front row. I am suspicious here that I have misunderstood what is going one here, but at the same time beginning to suspect the truth, which is that Trungpa represented a vested interest in the Tibetan tradition, his strange life and behavior notwithstanding. I suspect the Tibetan tradition is built around these bizarre entrenched zones of people and the disembodied ‘ghost persons’ who have to solicit ‘reincarnation’ vehicles which are nothing of the kind. What was happening with Trungpa, however, is not clear, and may not follow this pattern exactly.
Students here should be asking if they are supporting a hidden elite that pays no attention to its students at all.

06.07.13

Religion, evolution, the Axial Age

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:48 am

http://darwiniana.com/2013/06/06/amazon-review-of-de-waals-book-on-bonobosatheismreligion/

06.03.13

Yes, beware of EJ Gold on the path to enlightenment!

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:27 am

As per previous post…
People associated with Gurdjieff seem to be ‘formal devils’, apply the ‘counteraffirmative force’ to active spiritual efforts. Another definition of the ‘devil’, apparently.

Beware of such people. They WILL try to knock people off their path. Beware of them. They aren’t gurus…

Gold and the rogue sufis (and Tibetans in some cases) are very dangerous. You can fail to even notice action on the unconscous.

Cut the spiritual bullshit, and be wary.

Yes, beware of EJ Gold on the path to enlightenment!

Posted in Uncategorized at 9:23 am

As per previous post…
People associated with Gurdjieff seem to be ‘formal devils’, apply the ‘counteraffirmative force’ to active spiritual efforts. Another definition of the ‘devil’, apparently.

Beware of such people. They WILL try to knock people off their path. Beware of them. They aren’t gurus…

06.02.13

Belief in the devil wrecked Xtianity altogether

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:29 am

moved here from Darwiniana

Catholic Priest: Disbelief in the Devil main cause of atheism

The Pope’s exorcism is a splendid sign because one of the main causes of today’s atheism is that people don’t believe in the Devil any more. But Jesus said: ‘Who is not with me is with Satan.’ If you don’t believe in Satan, Satan has got you in his pocket.”

The tactics of scaring people into belief is passing away once and for all, leaving one to ask what was this religion?
First the quote from Jesus is probably apochryphal, but in any case the statement would show confusion on Jesus’ part.
Sorry to say it, but Jesus seems not to have reached enlightenment in his lifetime. Some have claimed he reached that state during the crucifiction. Who can say. Jesus was obviously a vibrant and unique spiritual person, one of mesmerizing charisma. But many sages (e.g Rajneesh) have warned that if we met him today he would seem strange, offkey, almost primitive. His life is so veiled that it is an insoluble puzzle.
He did what he was in some way sent to do, and left a mystery in his wake. But to create a religion confused about the devil is, well, the sad tale from the beginnings.
All this said, I don’t espouse standard views here, those of most secularists. It is an incomprehensible question, save for those who converge on the path of enlightenment, apparently. The demonology of the buddhas is witnessed to by those who enter the path of enlightenment. Gautama, Milarepa. The mysterious obstacles and battles with ego often seem like struggles with demons. Maybe they are. They could also be the rogue sufi next door perfoming black magic. Or those who prey on those close to enlightenment to suck away spiritual energy. There is indeed a monstrous world of spiritual dangers. But the myth of the devil is off the mark.
We cannot safely adopt skepticism (or belief) here. The major buddhas who have reached enlightenment have repeatedly said so, quietly warning, Gautama with his Mara. What was he talking about? Your local priest is confused. but so is you local shrink.

The path of the buddhas is unsafe, and it seems that few make it in their early attempts, and succumb to forms of evil, madness, or simple mental confusion in reactive down spirals. That is how the myths arise. The problem is that something is real here, but no knowledge is possible. That is why reifying concepts of demonology always ends in superstition. For that reason exoteric religions tend to adopt simpler standards to protect a gathering in an assembly of faith or belief. But the result is that everyone is confused, and myths of the devil emerge. But this reality in common exoteric religion has degenerated into a belief in the devil which totally confuses the issue. the confusion is not easy to analyze, and books on the subject are few, viz. Pagels’ book on the history of the Devil.
Actually Star Wars almost got it right: there might be cosmic beings who have adopted forms of evil and who appear as evil beings. The sufi Gurdjieff claimed to be such himself.
I wouldn’t put much stock in science fiction, but the latter is often evocative unwittingly of something that eludes us.

In any case these priests are out of line to be still peddling this toxic brand of Xtianity (which has been pretty constant since the beginning).
Priests who peddle this nonsense should stop it, and enter a path of meditation to encournter their probable psychic possession below the level of consciousness, projected outward on the phantom ‘the devil’. The reality is almost more scary, because it ‘real’.

06.01.13

Creating your own religion // Alternet article, commentary

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:44 pm

http://darwiniana.com/2013/05/31/create-your-own-religion/