The deep core of Tibetan Buddhism is under suspicion of some really upsetting facts in the dark rumors of the last generation. Osho gave the game away, but the message didn’t quite sink in. After a while it creates a kind of sickness in people, a species of PTSD in the contradictions created by traditionalist authoritarian spirituality and modern notions of freedom and autonomy. The whole question of gurus and disciples is a pile of shit at this point, and I think the whole game is shot. This issue wrecked the sufi milieu of EJ Gold who was unable or unwilling to discuss the issue, and seems to deliberately have left it hanging in a void of induced paranoia. In Jews this was a superpuzzle. But I guess their sufi brownshirts must have persuaded them to ‘surrender’. They managed the miracle of ‘surrender’, jews who would do the heil hitler and call themselves sufis. One for Ripley’s ‘Believe it or not’.
The legacy of Tibetan Buddhism is under suspicion, and the failure of its leadership, the Dalai Lama, to address the issues is going to spell the doom of the movement. The lesson of Chogyam Trungpa is that the whole of lamaism is sick with no viable future. You can’t operate a fascist spiritual movement of ghost/bodhissatwas using a set of Tibetan peasants as fronts, trained parrots mouthing buddhist slogans on cue in the invultuation of the spiritual hierarchy. Conceivably the whole sick routine was a comedy routine. But I think that we have lost the thread of the original tradition and the result now is a stillborn Tibetan Buddhism trying to eek out a future as a dead vampire. We don’t need this corrupt remainder to take up the next centuries of a new era, displacing the chance of a really creative real ‘new age’ movement. Buddhism is dead, and Tibetan Buddhism is worse than dead.
This movement is dangerous because it demands submission to spiritual authority but allows no release via the liberation of consciousness into the field of enlightenment. The result is an army of dead orcs who have to fight the battles over the ‘really dead dead’ preying on the politics of vulnerable Western cultures. It could never have endured very long, and I think the short success of the lamaist movement in the West is more of a death than a rebirth of dharma.
These are strong words and the traditional response of Tibetan operators is black magic (if not torture and death in the old kingdom of medievaly), but they dare not expend their in any case spent firepower in this area, although a few select victims could be vulnerable. We should be vigilant and out front in public, lest their old habits persist unbroken.
I think we can at least put the game on defensive as it looks for a exit strategy into a real new age, a real future. But it can’t do that in its current state without confessing to its real history, and on that score we can sit back and wait while the beast dies away.
In the meantime the real effect of buddhism is a sickness, a form of PTSD that requires a resolution, and an easy if slow cure in the refusal of all buddhist, or other gurus, and some awareness of the plunder of autonomy involved in the creation of spiritual fascists, often across lives so the victim can make no connection.
The whole sick game is over, and the fight for the psotmodern fascist coup to restore the lordship of antiquity is dismisses with a bronx cheer, to start, and a countdown to a real spiritual war if the dead men waling in the buddhist line can’t get the message.
As per the previous post, it is true that most people can’t imagine what is being talked about or how buddhism could connect with buddhism in some form. Perhaps it is almost better not to know! But the issues are not so complex, but they are not likely to ever enter public consciousness. We must be prepared to help people evade being set up by reactionary fascists using ‘new age’ fronts. You can see the whole confusion arising in Blavatsky’s deceptive talk about spiritual powers, etc.. Not much more is needed to fit the task of explanation to some…nonexistent facts. I think some skepticism is useful, but I think we should realize that something is needed for the future. People are giving us a warning without going into detail.
India has to restore something of their legacy from the root stock, and bypass standard hinduism with its complications. That root stock is evidently what Osho was pointing to or trying to carry forward. Society is likely to abolish ‘real buddhism’ as the path to enlightenment, and this will frustrate the issues further.
Don’t misunderstand me: the new age movement is not the same as the ‘path to enlightenment’. The latter is trying to give birth to itself in a new incarnation of buddhism that is free of its past legacies. Osho claimed to be doing that, but we can’t be sure of the result.
The ‘new age’ movement is a modernist sphere of study that began in the modern transition at around the time of Herder and Schopenhauer (or we could say in the period of the Reformation). It was unable to produce a path to enlightenment, although Schopenhauer stumbled into that, almost. It was then hijacked by the various seminal figures such as Blavatsky and Gurdjieff, both dishonest operators destined to cast false or confusing seeds, as Khrishnamurti protested in a moment of bitterness.
Krishnamurti and Osho, however, seem to grasp the need for a new spirituality of the future.
The so-called ‘new age’ movement is thus a phase in transition. It seemed as if the whole game should be according to the ancient traditions of spiritual movements. The problem is that we don’t really know what those were! Something was awry there from the start. The attacks on modernity were misconceived and doomed the ‘new age’ movements to being old age movements trying to fight modernity and restore ancient traditions. It seems logical on the surface, but it has produced confusion. Modernity is not the kali yuga or a degeneration. It is a complex advance in the progression of civilizations. One that was so isolated from Eurasia’s larger context that it failed to properly reexpress a ‘new age’ in areas such as the buddhism rapidly flooding into the West. But that immense movemente belongs to an older era. As buddhists themselves suspected protesting that modernity was false and should be destroyed with an occult anti-modernist movement. I think the ‘old age’ movements died with that fascist underground initiative that rapidly deviated into the calamities of the era of Nazism. I think buddhism died with it, but noone realizes it yet. Time in its wisdom is using this buddhist fad to rescue something from disaster in a move toward the future. The forms of the older buddhism are destined to pass away. This is not even newsworthy. Look at the Jainism of Mahavir, the last of his lineage passing the baton to the first of a new, Gautama. Buddhism is destined probably to an institutional continuity (as was the post-Mahavir Jainism) but without its old fire.
It is hard to predict, but we can create our own ‘prediction’ by creating a new future beyond the old. I often feel that this was what animated Osho, but I am not able to speak for hi. He is the one who accused buddhist of fascism, outright nazism. it is hard to proceed here with incomplete information.
One thing is clear: the false buddhists who forced the issue of absolute obedience to the authority of spiritual hierarchy and then cashed in on this to stage fascism and genocide destroyed buddhism as Guatama-ism and the rubble is all that is left. It may be that that was a way to destroy the movement, by its founder. He stated clearly his sense the future would produce a new teacher. So much hype has arisen from that that we fail to see how directly insightful the maitreya myth was, but one that has always foundered in nonsense as claimants attempt to take the title.
That is the way this series of epochs works, apparently. But it is hard to see how the future can generate a continuance of buddhism. Perhaps the osho path can do that. Or take a first step toward that. I don’t feel automatic confidence in that.
The discussions of Gurdjieff strongly indicate the need to abolish the ‘guru’ legacy. If we can’t create a form of the spiritual path leading to enlightenment without gurus then the whole tradition is likely to die of its own successes turning into failure. The question is relative. Getting help from a source is one thing, like going to a library, or seeking counsel from a wise person but the demands of absolute surrender, too often with an invisible political subtext, are a puzzle that isn’t a puzzle at all. They are a corrupt and decadent brand of the guru legacy itself. This stance of surrender achieves no purpose: it doesn’t lead to spiritual realization, in reality destroying the whole possibility.
The issue with Gurdjieff is a misfortune. This interloper outside the main tradition uses exotica to mesmerize a following. But that is never connected to anything definite and we suspect is a way to create drones in service of the operator, Gurdjieff, in life and beyond.
The situation in the Indian guru tradition is more complex and has repeatedly produced realized men. But I think the successes are due to something beyond the format of the guru. Many gurus indulge in spiritual energy games that produce the illusion of realization. All of that is beside the point.
The ‘path’ requires autonomous individuals, whatever the need to transcend autonomy. If it can’t be done with autonomous individuals it is not doable at all. But here we have to face the complex history of buddhism where a suspicious tradition of esoteric fascism emerged, or so it is charged. The situation is most probably nothing to do with Guatama who seems to have delayed the final nirvana til the medieval era, dumping the whole game on the Tibetans, and dissolved into nothing. We had better hope it is so.
Let’s look at the paths of Osho and of Gautama himself: Osho had no guru, and Gautama had some very superficial contacts with peers, not ‘gurus’, as far as we know. In fact full story no doubt stretches over several lives, and we know little of any of that, the various biographies being mostly worthless.
The issue of Gurdjieff is frustrating. Over and over mesmerized outsiders plug his path, people kept well away from finding out the truth. Ouspensky is blamed for lack of surrender when in fact he surrendered far more than anyone should have done. His rejection of Gurdjieff has to be taken seriously. He could see that the guru game was going to be a problem.
The whole situation is an outrage against Ouspensky. It is Ouspensky’s book that created the Gurdjieff movement, as Gurdjieff well knew (his own writings without Ouspensky would never have been able to survive, such is there obscurity). And one suspects the exile of Ouspensky was deliberate: Gurdjieff knew that he would have a rival here.
Twice Gurdjieff played this trick: ensnaring highly intelligent outsiders (Ouspensky and Bennett, both with mathematical aptitude) and using them to create an attractor gravitating newcomers to his ‘teacher’ or ‘guru sphere of hypnosis’. Ouspensky began to sense the way he was being used, but in the end fell into the trap completely with the publication of ISOM after his death. The book he wrote has created an almost unlimited power source for the dead spirit of G, for generations to come, the damage created rarely seen by the dupes who almost always got where they are from Ouspensky.
It is time the whole thing passed away into history. The movement has not created a single case of higher consciousness, although fakes like EJ.Gold arrived at an imitation via other sufistic sources.
Bennett is another sad case: his brilliant book The Dramatic Universe was muddled by the addition of Gurdjieff elements. Bennett experienced a mysterious spiritual contact in the wake of his work with Ouspensky, before the second world war, and this led to a confusingly double project, on the one hand a brilliatn set of ideas based on his systematics, and then some Gurdjieff elements grafted on, corrupting the result. An example is the enneagram, which is most probably complete nonsense. Bennett convinced himself all these contradictions didn’t matter, but the his work as a result is confusing. Once you get a sense of the original project which comes from a different source his work makes better sense.
Gurdjieff wrecked two individuals in this fashion of his exploitative method, and as many sufis quietly realized the whole project was a failure.
You cannot mix scholarship with guru surrender games. You see the way this wrecked the Dramatic Universe. Many ideas of unsound basis enter the book as esoteric truths, no less, erosing the skeptical enquiry needed to bring off such a project. Much can be rescued from the Dramatic Universe, with the simple method of scholarly critique and analysis. What’s left is a lot of Bennett, a mysterious brand of the ancient Samkhya, which should have nothing to do with Gurdjieff’s purloined version, and a set of general philosophic and scientific ideas blended into an intriguing world history.
To see that Bennett unwitting stepped outside of the game plan read the fourth volume of DU and you will see something that contradicts the strategy of reactionary antimodernism that animates so much new age guruism and Gurdjieff in particular. The modern world is anathema and the rejection of modernity is basic to that. Bennett had no clue to that and actually entered a plug for communism in his depiction of the onset of a new age period in 1848. This blunder of Bennett has doomed his book in traditional groups, while the modernist crowd remains rightly suspicious.
So we see two brilliant individuals damaged by the guru context. Worse (read the Preface to DU) we suspect Gurdjieff didn’t give a shit and thought the placement of some of his material in Bennett’s book would be good for him. And so it has happened. The works of Bennett are all ‘higher powered’ by submission to the Gurdjieff sphere, which laughed all the way to the spirit bank at the easy attraction of many new students via the appeal of Bennett.
The whole legacy is trash,and needs to be scrapped.
We need to be done with gurus surrender games, which threatened the spiritual core of its victims, sufi con artists and the abuse of magical elements to induce dangerous forms of hypnosis…in a short list.
And I am more than sure that Ouspensky in his next life realized to his horror how he had been cheated: he produced a book that was dynamite propaganda for Gurdjieff , while he himself in his next life was completely banned from any further contact with the ‘work’. This strategy is horrendous, and so far is a brand of the perfect crime. Five hundred years from now the same racket will allow these spiritual criminals to feed off innocent suckers attracted by Ouspensky.
It is enough to make you puke.
After reading The Three Magi book on Osho, Crowley and Gurdjieff I have repented of my plug of Osho for leftists. Forget I mentioned it. The book did help me realize something that was true for many years, seventies to eighties: the three paths were scrambled from the start and cancelled out.
I really can’t recommend Osho at this point for leftists on a revolutionary path. You will be rapidly penetrated by all sorts of demonic confusions. And I fear the same could be said of Xtianity at this point. Xtianity has strength in numbers: on the average the Xtian community has a kind of spiritual protection circle, however often individuals fuck it up. But Xtianity, as we all knew in the sixties, is almost worthless as a vehilce of development. If you are content to be a robot for Christ, you will more than likely be able to function without demonic confusion in ordinary life. No more than that. Virtully all development is blocked in Xtianity.We always knew that and embarked on the ways of development in Eastern paths/cults.
But after thirty five years I can see that every possbility there has been destroyed.
Sufism is, forget it. I have actually penetrated to its esoteric mystery, the solar plexus seed process. But can’t use it, and will ignore the implant until after death when it will detach from the astral body. Women have a word for it. Abortion. Done. No more sufi buggers.
Sufis are the most devious and confusing devils. It is impossible to trust such a mafia. Everything I have explored there, all of Idries Shah, has been useless. Deliberate deception. People like E.J. Gold make any sufi path in the US dangerous. If he finds out you are on some path he will try to undermine it. The Gurdjieff gangster devils want to know your weaknesses, to expoit them and cause your downfall. These people started as gurus and ended up devils because it is a good business.
These people are dangerous if they are able to seize control of your unconscious. Buddhism? The factor ofTibetan Buddhism has made buddhism a waste of time. The Tibetans monopolize a huge zone of techniques, but these are by definition useless on a real path: these are boddhissatwas out to save yout before the end of time. Great/ But in this life they may kill you if you are really serious on the path to enlightenment. In any case Tibetan buddhism is a closed monopoly of a very few disembodied spirits. Forget it for yourself.
The other paths in buddhism (we have had visitors here from various Thai/Hinayana paths), I don’t know. I can’t afford to travel to these places. They have left hundreds of comments on this blog, but never once introduced themselves or invited me to their situations. I got the message.
Yoga, I simply stop doing, given the way it has become a business. The local buddhism in the US is being taken over by the New Atheist type of secularist: they wish to neutralize the whole game, and reduce everything to mindfulness, a complete crock.
The question is what can be done here? So long sucker. Not much. I think working toward a revolutionary future with a kind of default spirituality of nothing at all is one way to go. The early communists became atheists, materialists, and implacable enemies of all religion. I can see their point! But that itself is a vulnerable ‘path’. But a slightly more elaborated ‘null path’ could be a good disguise, and even the materialist disguise is useful.
In fact a very simple path is open here; simple meditation. Don’t take a single method from any source. Wikipedia can probably describe enough to start. Sitting can help to explore the way to a real path of your own. Another tactic is to schedule your days: how much will do you have? Have you been invultuateed by an unseen power? The ability to follow a path of autonomy can sometimes expose those hidden devils. See what is obstructing your path, your life. You might notice that beginners are better off here. Long term practioners come to the attention of hidden powers who will look for an entry into your sphere.
If a new communism could ever succeed in the creation of a new society, a clearing of the slate could rid the field of all these vultures and start over.
The left should simply study the issues of religion and be ready if they can ever help. Everyone in the spiritual sphere is so confused, leftist might actually be able to help.
Another source of help is Krishnamurti: his loathing and contempt for the whole sphere of New Agism was so total that he simply stands outside of it. You cannot bother such a spirit with you individuality. But as a refuge of sorts, it might help. That used to be the point of buddhism. But expecting any refure inthat nightmare is unrealistic.
This book on the three new age gurus, Gurdjieff, Crowley, and Osho, point to what is likely to bring harm to Osho’s path, or what he left behind. Gurdjieff dead probably has more capacity for samsaric influence, and harm, than the enlightened Osho, who seems to move beyond identity into a faceless enigma.
And unfortunately aggressive spirits like that of the Gurdjieff legacy are still grounded in samsara and can easily adopt the masks of such former gurus, in the minds of those attempting to study the questions Osho left behind, and initiate actions that force revolt in the unsuspecting victim. Not the least of the reasons ‘sannyas’ with a dead guru is effectively hopeless. The number of occult attempts to discredit Osho, some of them from Buddhists who should know better, is depressingly large. I think Osho himself was nearly fooled at times, while alive. Those who forsake enlightenment for psychic powers are often nimbler in the occult sphere than enlightened men with their strain of almost naive wonder and openness. So I have to wonder how long the Osho legacy will endure if it is not clear where the boundaries to such as Crowley and Gurdjieff.
Three Dangerous Magi, The: Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley Paperback
by P. T. Mistlberger
I just came across this book and am in the process of reading it. I think we have stumbled on the problem sannyasins are going to have in the future with Osho’s teaching. This book cavalierly created a triad of three very different things, and persons. I can’t see any problem with someone who wants to provide information often lacking in New Age circles, but here we see the emerging problem with many New Age groups: people are starting to create impossible combinations of things that don’t add up to anything.
Here the author’s enthusiasm misses the point that Osho, Crowley and Gurdjieff are completely different ‘paths’ or perspectives. Combining them won’t work.
Osho was an enlightened ‘buddha’ who passed beyond the cycle of births. He proposes a clear path to Enlightenment in the context of the Indian tradition.
Crowley is in the end obscure: his practices I strongly suspect (based on rumors of his rebirth as a ‘sufi’ somewho) led nowhere and he was promptly subject to rebirth and amnesia as to his previous works.
Gurdjieff was a self-described ‘devil’ who was not enlightened but a party to the obscure sufi ‘awakening of consciousness’, or something analogous, in the context of the obscurities of the ‘will’ paths, very different from the paths of enlightenment. Gurdjieff seems to have a way of ‘soul rebirth, yet with something on /permanent aim/’, the logic of his tale of the trips of Beelzebub to the planet earth (rebirths).
Gurdjieff whoever he was was a dangerous black magician, not to be trusted, and likely to enslave his students and to use some cannibal-style as food. I see absolutely no progress in consciousness in any of his students, and suspect that some are destined to be ‘food for the cannibals of the work’. But then how would I know, I haven’t met all that many. His students if they are lucky may stumble into some real sufi zone, but most will have to start over with something they can use. They can also end up as ‘forever drones’ of the magus, destined to spiritual slavery as robots of the master. A terrible fate.
When you enter a spiritual path, read the fine print.
How are you going to create a hybrid of these three things? In fairness to the author he has researched a set of issues and provided some facts, and has stumbled on what is going to be the situation suffered by Osho’s sannyasins, hybrid of messes of pottage. Osho warned of this chaos.This writer’s ‘authorial sympathy’ is not necessarily the stance to take with these thinkers. Crowley is a REALLY BAD person to imitate. His ‘path’ or ‘paths’ are obscure in their provenance and depend on the still misunderstood legacies of ‘Rosicrucian/Freemason’ gosh knows what. These ‘paths’ have NEVER received any clear and reliable historical documentation. And the drivel of the psycopaths in these fields resembles that of the secret agencies of political spy worlds.
The author seems to see the influence of Gurdjieff on Osho. We have discussed this here many times. An Indian on the lineage of Buddha with all its riches influenced by Gurdjieff’s superficial methods of ‘meditation in action’? I doubt it. I think that Osho saw through Gurdjieff in the end, and moved away from him. But, whatever the case, the path in Gurdjieff is not clear and many reread Ouspensky dozens of times, without a single hour of meditation. It is a pitiful situation.
In any case, the path of the ‘Magi’ is not that of Osho, and these Magi are historically obscure, and aren’t really the same as the ‘magus’ in Crowley’s cult/occult cult.
Trying to these three things at once is going to produce chaos.
I am sorry for such a harsh take on the Dalai Lama. But his views on marxism are, of course, misleading. YOU DO NOT DARE navigate Tibetan Buddhism as a far leftist, not only because of the treatment of Tibet by China. (If you keep a low profile you can certainly take trip through this realm anonymously)
Let me say at once that I think China should grand autonomy to Tibet, and be done with that one.
More generally it is not safe to be a radical in this environment of crypto-reactionaries. Ditto for the Gurdjieff world. So I am well within range to be wary of the Dalai Lama’s statements on marxism. Still once you say something you are stuck with it: this set of statements by the Dalai Lama is grounds for beating down the door on this movement and creating a left avenue in this sideshow to buddhism.
This blog has clarified these points. Look at Gurdjieff and Ouspensky: their views are outrageous, Gurdjieff endorsing the treatment of Russian peasants, pre-Bolshevik with some regrets over the abolition of slavery, in the generation just before his appearance. Ouspensky produced his book on the ‘future evolution of man’ and associated that with class/caste laws of India. Can you believe that? The many defenders of Gurdjieff here don’t get the point at all, and think they are in some kind of liberal Disneyland of Sufis.
You have an ace up your sleeve, as it were: these reactionaries are forced to deal with liberal modernist westerners and will never show their hand. But you can be victimized in your unconscious.
to be continued
I think that the study of buddhism is the absolute fundamental first step toward a real New Age Movement. After ditching the whole religion. My remarks here are mostly sour grapes: I would be shown the door at almost all buddhist organizations, so I have no options there.
Sentimental literature on the New Age is, to me, disgusting. After Gurdjieff, the sufis, and the Tibetan Buddhists, the idea of being in the New Age movement is ridiculous. The idea of a lawsuit is apt, but, of course, these black magicians get off scot free, while their front office dummies (like the Dalai Lama) intone on Gautama’s compassion.
The basic point, which eludes legal remedy: if you use black magic to kill people or to enslave them you should be able to seek redress, in law. Otherwise you have an environment of paranoia, false spiritual fronts misleading the victims, and a situation increasingly angry secularists will resolve by destroying your religion, here buddhism.
The suspicions of fascist occultism linger to poison everything.
I think, by the way, Gautama has no further connection to buddhism. So the issues are irrelevant, time to move on.
This is not baseless fiction: the invultuation of a figure like Hitler, and from a distance, is not an occult fantasy. A fair number people are almost able to do this. The full operation concealed and cloaked behind German occultism is another matter. As they say, only an outfit with resources at a ‘state’ level could manage such as thing.
We have equivocated on this a lot here. And I have done the usual song and dance, once again, time to ditch buddhism? yes, no, blah blah…
The issue of ditching buddhism is easy for me: I ditched buddhism at about the same time it ditched me, with no cure loneliness, or any defense against the demons this religion infests its fans with before it ditches them.
Sue the bastards. Can there be a class action lawsuit against Tibetan Buddhists. Nein, mein fuhrer.
The point: I would be happy to consider the Dalai Lama’s breadth in being able to talk marxism. But the terrible dirty secret of Tibetan Buddhism, if it is real, can’t be repaired with sentimental marxist sentiments. I spent ten years as a homeless person in capitalist America and I really don’t appreciate the Dalai Lama talking dirty on his communist sympathies, which are probably nothing of the kind.
Still, what you say is what you have to live with until you have to either pay up to Humpty Dumpty on your previous remarks, or retract them, or have your bosom friends retract them. Tibetan buddhism, anymore than the Catholic Church, does not strike me as in any way capable of a radical contribution to the world situation. But sympathetic remarks, e.g. as here on marxism, can be taken as a loan the issuer must repay.
So after we determine if the charges of fascist politics are false or not, we can return to the issue of postcapitlism.
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  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:
Read the rest of this entry »
Time to ditch buddhism, scroll down for the post by this name.
Well, maybe no, not yet time:
But the point of the review is to consider the reality of buddhism behind its public fronts, and begin to realize that the history of buddhism is likely to undermine its future. The path to neo-buddhism is already laid out, in part, as we have indicated here…
I wrote a review of this book when it came out, but withdrew it to reconsider the issues in light of the recent controversy. That controversy has been somewhat confused on both sides. This is an account of some depth of Hinduism, but something has gone awry, notwithstanding the conservative strains of Hinduism to Hindutva that have tended to discredit the critics. But one reviewer hit the nail on the head, with what is essentially my view, by suggesting that the book tries to take the high ground via the stance of secularist debriefing from one who can explore an immense of amount of detail but miss the simple issue of the live core of Hinduism as it is, a living tradition older than anything the West knows. The question of Hinduism is very confusing because it is at once what remains of the original source of the greatest religious phenomenon of world history: the yogic/buddhist/jain legacies of the path of enlightenment. But at the same time something has gone wrong somewhere. Any critic who wishes to subject this tradition to stealth debunking via the details will miss the point. I am myself very critical of much that calls itself Hinduism, for example, the caste laws and the attempted spiritualization of this in a set of views that are really a later addition to the original tradition. What is the real problem here? In fact the problem is not hard to find, but this ends up in another controversy over the so-called ‘Out of India’ versus the ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’. The last generation has seen the debate enter a stage of acrimony that is often hurting the case of many defenders of Hinduism. Let us recall here that the debate of the AIT is something recent and confused. Many original scholars of Indian background were themselves proponents of some variant of the AIT theory. So it is not really an issue here of Western bias. The ‘Out of India’ thesis won’t stand and defenders of Hinduism would do well to reconsider this recent confusion. There is no reasonable way to propose that the Indo-European languages source in India. Some of the claims here are simply bizarre in their logic and this has confused traditionalists all around.
Let me suggest a resolution of some of the issues by returning to the AIT and then suggesting that many of statements of this view are rightly considered chauvinist by Westerners. We don’t know quite how to state the AIT. But one should consider the views of the older scholar Danielou, adopting the views of Indian students of history. Here we see that the term ‘Hinduism’ is misleading. The tradition of Indic religion goes back very far into the past, into the Neolithic finally. But this earlier tradition predated the Aryan entry phase on the second millennium BCE. Thus the entry of the Indo-Europeans created a misleading hybrid of primordial and invader religions resulting in the false view that the Indo-Europeans were the source of Indian spiritual elements, as in Buddhism. But this hybrid has confused everyone. The original ‘santana dharma’ predated the Aryan invasion and shows clear elements of an almost primordial version of Shaivism, ultimately the source of the yogic paths to liberation.
If we stick to this simple resolution, most of the problems go away, at the expense of exposing the Vedic tradition as something altogether different in the way it tries to make Vedism the predecessor to the Upanishadic view of yogic sadhanas. The ancient legacies were translated into ‘sanskrit’ and/or related Aryan languages such as Prakrit (in buddhism) and this left the impression
the originals were of Aryan origin. We can see at once the source of the hopeless confusion created by the forgotten stages of the assimilation era. A lot of sophistry has emerged here obscuring the simplicity and clarity of the resulting restored view that looks for the source of Indian tradition in the very ancient eras before the Aryan entry, the third and fourth, or earlier epochs, BCE. As Danielou suggested, some of the Sanskrit materials look like they were translated from some other language, whether Dravidian or other linguistic foundation. But this view has been rejected by most scholars, too many, unaware of the shoddy foundations of their interpretations. The classic Shiva seal ought to be a reminder that yogis were on the path to liberation from very early times. So western scholars and critics of the AIT are both confusing the issue. There is a lot more to say here, but the basics of a solution is simple: Indic religions originates far back, perhaps even in the Neolithic, and goes through two grand cycles prior to the Aryan era, viz. the two millennia of the high Neolithic after about 5000 BCE onward, and then a second phase after around 3000BCE. It may be here that the primordial Shaivism began to split off its cousin religions, starting with Jainism, and then with buddhism in the next era, called by many scholars the Axial Age, which is the source of Buddhism. The Axial Age is the key to much of the confusion arising between Hinduism and Buddhism because the latter shows an immense innovation, while source called ‘Hinduism’ is more static because it is the source! Nonetheless the Upanishads offer the hint of the vitality of the older tradition. In fact the outstanding legacies of ancient Indic religion will soon spawn a series of religions in the various descendants of non-dual Vedanta, creating an immensely complex set of religious worlds, quite apart from the case of Buddhism.
We can leave this alternative history incomplete but with the key to the issues clearly indicated in a brief summary. We can see now why the new version of Hinduism is muddling the real history, while the work of secular scholars such as Doniger apparently deny/negate the spiritual basis of Indian religion. We have seen books written in the West trying to take ‘enlightenment’ out of Buddhism, in the same of some kind of secular imperative. This kind of extreme reductionism is unable to do justice to the depth of Indic religious tradition, which should include the Jain and Buddhist traditions under the common umbrella, santana dharma. So the attempts by Western scholars, apparently including Doniger, to induce a kind of Weberian rationalization of a religious tradition not in the Iron Cage have all backfired, in the realization that the core of the Indian tradition contains something very profound and not clarified by the perversity of much Western sociology of religion
Readers can find a lot more on this subject at the blog The Gurdjieff Con and this includes attempts to study the history of buddhism in India and its conflict with ‘neo-Brahminism.
We have consistently tried to expose the rightwing reactionary character of the Tibetan buddhist movement. The point is obvious from the surface history, with a question mark and dark rumors about the occult fascism of Tibetan figures hidden in the movement.
The Dalai Lama talks from both sides of the mouth and gives out a liberal odor on frequent occasions. But the hints are there of a conservative movement, and clearly the dalai lama is trying to position himself on the subject of capitalism.
AT a time when the planetary crisis is escalating it would be helpful to consider the revolutionary history of early buddhism, and to demand the same from buddhism now, or else its dismantling. Buddhism, as we have suggested here many times, is/was one of the world’s great religions, but it is fading away slowly, behind the temporary resurgence created by the New Age movement. We need a initiative to start over for a new era.
In any case I suspect the deeper connections to the CIA and/or other covert agencies, and the Dalai Lama ineptly gives himself away, to please his old handlers, from the days of the Tibetan guerrilla movement controlled by the CIA.
The Dalai Lama let slip, before or during the capture/death of Bin Laden, that he was a proponent of non-violence, except for the case of Bin Laden. !!
And the suspicious behavior of figures like Stephen Segal the Tulku at the Boston Marathon event gave away something going on behind the scenes with respect to the War on Terror. A quick look at his movies shows the Neanderthal level of the Tibetan hierarchy.
Behind the fine words we have to suspect Tibetan Buddhism is completely stuck in a reactionary mindset.
The attempt will be made to neutralize radical buddhist groups with the aura of spiritual authority generated by the lamaist tradition. That’s complete bullshit. The Dalai Lama has no spiritual authority whatever, and you should quietly depart from Tibetan Buddhism forthwith on the grounds these ‘authorities’ don’t agree at all and think themselves very highly as spiritual powers with your life in their hands, and they will exert their will against those who won’t kowtow.
There is almost no reason to bother with Tibetan Buddhism at this point. It is a waste of time for the majority. Its methods are mostly theatre, and its tradition a bogus and confusing darkness. The path of Mahayana is corrupt and exploits its entry boddhissatwas who are ripped off and discarded into samsaric dead zones. Pause and reflect: there are better ways to serve humanity than by the bogus path of the boddhissatwa whose deception is to create a terminal samsaric world line with no hope of redemption. In reality the sangha can’t control is members who almost always slip away in the end.
It is not even news that buddhism belongs to an older era and is casting its seed in the ground to create a new movement for the future. But that future is not going to be controlled by buddhism.
Check the scanned text of Bazaz’ compelling book here on this blog. The revolutionary early history of buddhism is tale and a half. The Tibetan hierarchy is something completely different, a dead kingdom created in the middle ages of the past era. But by courting the powers that be a very dangerous movement will be created.
If you have radical sympathies you should ditch this farce at once. NEVER enter relations of passive disciple with such fascists. They will try to use spiritual surrender for political purposes.