Bennettt unwitting shows how we can move beyond the buddhas with a view of the human frame that is more general and far more complex, so complex that at first we can barely understand it.
The Osho game is a variant of the buddhist without even its initial graces. It is part of what I suspect is a fascist antimodernism that is totally misconceived and doomed to discredit the whole set of legacies.
Notables like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking are arguing not just for atheism, but against religion.
Source: How the New Atheist Movement Blew a Big Opportunity to Bring Acceptance to Non-Believers | Alternet
The catch with Bennett’s work: reciprocal maintenanceBennett was entangled in the Gurdjieff situation and that wrecked the integrity of his Samkhya, an Indic subject, with the hybridization with disparate elemments. One of them is the idea of reciprocal maintenance. As with all other ideas of Gurdjieff this one is not to be trusted. What does it mean? I am unaware of any straight and clear definition.
That is probably because its real meaning is that ‘the gods are cannibals and Gurdjieff is their prophet’. Man is a subject being used as cattle food for unknown higher powers, suspiciously fictitious that justify the activities of their intermediates. Man has no rights, no freedoms, should not be allowed democracy, must be kept alseep, and must pay taxes to occult powers…
The idea of reciprocal maintenance is an undocumented, deliberately misleading teaching so-called with no other authority than that of Gurdjieff who lied constantly, never provided sources or documentation, wiseacred without stop, and leveraged everything for a ‘percentage take’ on all who blundered into his terrain.
Bennett in his naivete embraced all of this and put it into the Dramatic Universe where, however, it is fairly marginal. But none of that appears in Samkhy, to say the least. And I think Bennett’s ‘demiurgic powers’ themselves protest his free gift of humanity to their dinner table. The demiurgic powers in reality are the stewards of evolutionary man and are the guardians of his essential nature, the source of his potential for freedom and the reconstituters of the lost democracies that litter history. The idea that they would prey on man as food is without evidence and contrary to every idea of the spiritual doman, which under Gurdjieff, Gold and other sufis has became a mafia realm.
However, it is still possible to reconstruct Samkhya along both traditional and Bennett lines (with a little Schopenhauer). We can simply set aside his other books and be clear that Gurdjieff is not the owner, master, or controlled of the Samkhya, whose legacy among sufis is still unknown.
In general we must be very wary of all predmodern ideas which have become corrupted in just this kind of way. The modern transition ditched all it and started over and while Schopenhauer couldn’t quite reinvent Advaita, he came close, but with a different conception.
To be fair to Bennett, we need to reconstitute ancient legacies in the context of modernity and that is what he did. Everything in his Dramatic Universe proceeds from axioms sui generis with wholly modernist/scientfic conceptions, with a heft dose of Whitehead, etc…
You can’t really create a hybrid of Christianity and some kind of post-buddhist meditation path. You can do anything you want, of course, but the secular critique of Christianity has essentially won out. And in any case Indic paths were consistently wary of Christianity. To anyone but a Christian the doctrine of the Resurrection was incomprehensible. The only option at this point is to move past the doctrine either into a new Christianity or beyond it, probably the latter.
Even Moslems refused to accept this doctrine. Adhyashanti is misguided in his effort to maintain this aspect of Christianity. It has no place in a practice of a path of meditation. To create a hybrid is something hidden Christian operators would more than love to do: it would neurtralize the New Age movement and allow the trojan horse of spiritual authoritarianism in a Christian brand to enter the realm of yoga and buddhism. Why worry, it shows that all these subjects are in decline as they reach the stage of eclectic hash. But Adhyashanti puts his reputation on the line with such a dubious stance. A pity.
Be wary of Christianity: it will instantly block any path to enlightenment. The ragged fringe versions of that religion that are half secular don’t count.
The time has come to see that the ‘path of enlightenment’ is an incoherent and confused illusion (real enough in very isolated cases) and is exploited in large-scale teachings dishonestly.
It is worth considering the Samkhya, in its state of decay, with the work of J.G.Bennett who produced a complete framework of all possible paths, a result that resembles Samkhya in its lineage but shows how far that ancient subject has decayed. But the result is so complicated few can deal with it, let alone create a path from it.
But it is suspicious to me that treatment doesn’t even mention the ‘path to enlightenment’. Bennett’s work is oriented toward xtianity/sufism, but that leaves the question why he/they have to use an Indian legacy, one Indians themselves can’t seem to get straight (I may have missed something in conventional Samkhya). And Bennett’s material is mixed up the the crooked mess created by Gurdjieff and is unsafe to use in the way the material is set up by Gurdjieff as a front for his black magical path. This is outrageous.
But those people, even Gurdjieff, I will wager don’t understand their own subject, and it doesn’t belong to the G camp or sufis and could be made entirely independent and put in the public domain as a modern subject. Bennett actually did that, almost.
I am left to ask how Bennett came to write The Dramatic Universe. We have discussed that elsewhere, and at least it seems that he moved rapidly away from the Gurdjieff world and produced a work that can be used by modern secular culture for a new kind of preliminary spiritual study. But no real practical method was devised by Bennett, although he tried, and the connection with rogue sufis is going to make its use difficult. But the Dramatic Universe pulled ahead of those who might wish to exploit students of the subject.
The real New Age is going to start from these fragments and move to create a true psychology of man that is practical, realizable, and free from occult predators like Gurdjieff. The question of spiritual teachers is barely relevant: they are too stupid to understand the real ‘paths’ and operate with magical powers in various occult rackets run by hidden operators. We can skip all that.
Bennett’s work shows that the possibilities of spiritual paths are very complicated and, remarkably, we can see behind the idiocy of xtianity an earlier effort to use Samkhya, wrecked by completely dishonest or confused theologians (cf. the doctrine of the Trinity).
The subject of Advaita is a toss off. Let’s take it and use it, make it public domain, but caution the subject as being incomplete or specialized in a characteristic Indic fashion.
It makes no allowance for the factor of will, and we suspect that it, and the whole buddhist corpus is a degenerated version, of an unknown larger corpus of teachings. Declaring the outer world and ego illusions is great on paper but the doctrine of liberation is surely an incomplete fragment of a larger perspective that gives the outer world its due and coaches the will in man to realize his place in the scheme of worlds.
The alarming decline of buddhism and its corrupt Tibetan brands need to be left behind, with a question about what happened. We know that the chaotic Indic world declared war on buddhists and their attempted revolution and in the process of their destruction and exile the buddhists turned into a vicious mafia seeking revenge, the spirit of Gautama long gone. That’s my guess.
But it would recommend quietly ditching buddhism: you owe this mess nothing. you don’t have to become a dead zombie fascist in the scheme run by hidden agents with idiot fronts like the Dalai Lama.
The scheme of Bennett might point to a path that realizes the True Self in the scheme of 24 laws, with a further path realizing the Individuality and beyond at the level of 12 laws. the path of enlightenment is something else here, and might be redefined, but the stance of Advaita is both the only known practical path out in the open and a path with a catch 22: the loss of will strips down the human spiritual psyche and declares everything illusion. That is open to what I suspect: the abuse of the path of enlightenment by hidden occultists as a spiritual cannibalism racket.
Let us rush to warn that India shows clearly the way to do it right: a yogi renounces the world and enters on an ascetic path working alone ‘in the forest’.
These large aggregate complexes of sanghas, ashrams, commune, and under suspcion and leave open immense fields for exploitation. You are on your own and you not bother unless you can deal with that.
The whole crap of a guru like the Osho mala/picture brand is in retrospect nauseating. Throw that stupidity away. A mass production Bhakti path is a pile of crap.
The work of Samkhya may survive Gurdjieff, let’s hope that something might come of Bennett’s classic The Dramatic Universe, something better than use as a door stop. Meanwhile the path of will may be an illusion to the Advaitist, but let’s research the over all situation. And I suspect the hoard of ‘realized’ people set in motion by Poonja will realize they didn’t reach enlightenment by this method and will end up reincarnating, maybe as Dalits in the Indian case system.
This critic is justified in his puzzlement over the Osho situation, which is hard to understand. But its perspective is equally flawed, with its remnant ‘postmodern’ confusions, etc…Guenon comes out as superior to Osho. This is traditionalist piety at work and it is not much of much.
We have criticized Osho here but he has effectively destroyed the Tradition and forestalled the anti-modernist campaign of those who wish to rotely regurgitate the past.
Osho did a remarkable thing: exposed the fascism in the buddhist sangha and its promotion of Hilter and mass murder.
Admirers of buddhism must have missed something, something really basic. They have been deceived by something that died long ago and was replaced with ghosts. What else could Osho have done? The traditional routine of the guru, the buddha is a sick joke at this point.
Osho shattered all of it in his parody of the guru and his expose of enlightenment itself, as he moved ‘beyond enlightenment’ (whatever that means). The whole game is dead.
You will have to download this file and view in some version of word. Help preserve the legacy of this blog. The Age of Internet and its open software has brought out the truth behind much New Age hypocrisy.
This is an online critique, from Calder I think. There is a rebuttal in the sidelinks, but this classic critique stands in the legacy.
The world of the totalitarian guru is over and we need forthwith to find a successor. That successor is already implied by the reality of the current situation: which is a war of all against all, all gurus amongst themselves. This is really what has been described here over the past few years. These gurus are not demanding surrender, they refuse it themselves, they are really fighting for supremacy by eliminating rivals. The whole game is grotesque, and I note the hypocrisy of the Osho game: Rajneesh made a point of saying he never had a guru. So let us grant the same status to all.
What is needed is not the authority of the guru, but a means to self-defense in the coming chaos beyond guruism: already rogue sufis and buddhas are emerging to litter the field with new confusions. But wait, that already happened long ago: all these gurus are the riffraff of real guru tradition long since defunct.
Toward a New Communist Manifesto: The Crisis of Modernity: Postcapitalism in the Era of Climate Calamity – Kindle edition by John Landon. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Toward a New Communist Manifesto: The Crisis of Modernity: Postcapitalism in the Era of Climate Calamity.
Source: Toward a New Communist Manifesto: The Crisis of Modernity: Postcapitalism in the Era of Climate Calamity – Kindle edition by John Landon. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Dynamics of caste, religion, food and cultural rights reflect a harsh reality of Indian politics today.
Source: Between Modernity and Madness: India and the Rise of Beef-Ban Vigilantism | Alternet