Did gurdjieff wreck the samkhya legacy?….

Posted in Uncategorized at 4:13 pm

comments pending……

today: comments unpending, upending…

First, samkhya was probably already wrecked by the indic tradition…but some version entered into xtianity, and then was taken up by either sufis or some group of self-styled esoteric thinkers/groups…and gurdjieff seems to have picked this up…and this was transmitted in part by ouspensky…then gurdjieff produced his all and everything and this was so obscure that it is hard to make any sense of it…then bennett, ambiguously a student of ouspensky, then gurdjieff, but with some independent source (in the prewar period and after), began to develop his cosmic system in the Dramatic Universe. This book tried to make clear a larger system of thought that, without saying so, was basically a descendant of samkhya, but its complexity, quality, and modernity, with no reference of samkhya at all, broke from the moorings of antiquity and created a new and modern subject. Unfortunately it was not free from the trappings and possible occult influence of gurdjieff whose authoritarianism (and that of bennett) made scientific evaluation subject to occult black magic and other confusions, an outrageous outcome; the reason for this is that the authority of the guru is aboslute and can’t be questioned, etc…..It is true that it is dangerous to question of fiat of figures in the classic traditions of sheiks and gurus (a point open to some debate)…Further gurdjieff, the critic of wisearcring, introduced a host of bizarre concepts and interpretations, such as the enneagram, and much else…This is has grossly complicated the whole range of questions to the point of super muddle: and the world of amazon shows just how many bad books on gurdfieff and his system are starting to flood. And the moment the writer bows down to gurdjieff and/or cites his ‘sacred concepts’ philosophic license is granted for what is becoming a vast set of superstitions…to make the situation worse these ‘gurus’ like gurdjieff are content to simply lie on some issues, and to conceal others: we can never be sure which of his claims are ‘exoteric’ lies, and which can find a real explanation of some kind: the issue is almost absurd: a huge and growing public is subject to disinformation and is denied the real keys to anything in an explosion of gibberish.
Bennett almost succeeded in his task but his Dramatic Universe has so many liabilities and extra baggage that it is probably going to be derelict in the end.
Bennett notes the issue but not the danger at the start of DU where he quotes gurdjieff, cites his indifference to bennett’s contribution but says the book might be good propaganda for gurdjieff’s work…We are thus in a quandary: we have a potential map of both a new version of ancient samkhya and some attempt at upgrade by some hidden group but gurdjieff has inserted himself as a middleman, secret arbiter not required to speak the truth or reveal the facts not given to the public….

The situation is probably hopeless but there is a strategy that can at least offer partial benefit: declare samkhya broken but study it anyway historically. Study the absurd and preposterous, but in retrospect transparent, christian theological ‘trashed’ version/versions…adopt an agnostic stance on the sufic/esoteric ‘school’ referenced by gurdjieff that produced his ‘system’ bypassing it to study the bennett version: study bennett in terms of modernity, science, and philosophy, mindful of its limits, it added confusions (like the nonsense about four root cultures, astrology, the enneagram and much else)…
As study proceeds bennett system breaks as it were and you simply leave it behind, but it is a useful reminder of an unknown legacy that has turned into a very trashy outcome.
The core of bennett’s system is flawed, as is samkhya, because noone can resolve the two keys ideas:
the law of three
the law of seven

In these two laws are probably nonsense that no amount of reading of all and everything is going to resolve. We are to consider that where everyone is confused and being deliberately confused because occult honchos want to bury the dog deeper…

If you can survive the confused add ons in bennett and if you proceed with skeptical caution you can get a rough glimpse of what the whole question was/is about but in a fascinating way upgraded to a modern version that speaks directly to atomic physics, and the idea of evolution (bennett is a critic of darwin): we see a progression of categories/energies in a dodecad, in which the ternary/septenary take a prominent place (replacing garbage about the law of three and seven with ideas of ternary etc systems is a useful liberation of the subject, as yet not fully successful).
The demarcation of being, function, will is useful as is that of the hyponomic, autonomic, and hypernomic, but something strange happens as bennett discusses the hypernomic categories, 9 to 12: ehsy on earth is he talking about? Clearly he can’t resolve the progression beyond the eighth level of individuality…Not surprising…Although bennett’s whole attempt (influenced by whitehead) to create a post-kantian set of categories is open to severe challenge, the overall scheme, if we blink at a ‘new agey/scientisistic dishup of samkhya pizza’ actually makes an eerie partial sense even if we are left with a question in the end, is any of this really believable…? Perhaps the vision fades…
But bennett is on to something because his progression of systems, if not categories, actually matches physical entities: zeroth level ‘hyle’, one-term subatomic entities, two term particles , three term objects, four term ‘things’ molecules, five term systems with ‘potential’ (??), six term living systems cells, seven term ‘organisms’ and eight term ‘individuals’. Maybe someday sense can be made of this obvious resemblance of physical emergent entities and the ‘n-term’ systems of bennett (in terms of a dodecad in which the ninth through twelve categories are not really known and are given stand ins???)
After all of this it is still not clear how bennett takes ‘consciousness’ which he perhaps confusedly distinguishes from ‘sensitivity’ in a distinction of living and cosmic energies, with consciousness a cosmic energy, a provocative and possibly fertile way of dividing the pie…

This model actually generates a remarkable insight: man is on the boundary of the hypernomic reflected in the ambiguity of sensitivity (life) and ‘conscisousness’ (the usual distinction would take sensitivity as consciousness, and ‘consciousness’ as self-consciousness, like ‘self-remembering consciousness)…
In this immense scheme we confront a muted version of a theory of involution, as if bennett hadn’t quite figured out how to do it: but this issue is of interest in the way cosmic entities become involutionary mechanisms, and here biospheres suddenly enter as generators of life/evolution, a kind of gaian schematic. All this is unacceptable mystical physics, yet it is suspiciously apt on the issue of planetary evolution…But physicists stumble into this terrain with ideas of fine-tuning…

Perhaps at some point this subject can be liberated to scientific/secular spheres and it points to a world where human self-knowledge takes a quantum leap. But at this point a set of good ideas blew up on the launch pad and we left with a lot of junk that is trapped inside the gurdjieff authority system. As things stand people are going to write more and more bad books on the enneagram and denounce those who question the pronouncements of the masters, a sorry mess given the poor quality of gurdjieff’s thought.

Bennett’s framework points to an obvious solution the question of ‘paths’: the path of the true self, at samkhya level 24 and the path of individuality/will at level 12…But such schemes can also confuse people.
As noted the core concepts of ternary and septanary systems are the two pillars of the whole scheme but their status remains that of muddle. I know of noone what has truly clarified the two ideas.

Also at noted, you can get some benefit without those two concepts: study bennett’s system (in Dramatic Universe and only there, none of his other books) until it breaks and then stand back in some wonder and puzzlement that most probably same ancient and unknown form of knowledge entered world history and kept getting idiot renditions.

Note: I remain skeptical of ternary systems or triads, but as above there is a clue in physics: if triads make any sense then a clarification must be present in the transition from subatomic to atomic systems…Perhaps it is right under our noses in some way…But we can’t just insert a ‘third force’ the way the gurdjieffians do without finding the consistency with a larger subject, not likely…


An Amazon review of osho’s Moral, Immoral, Amoral……was Osho a psychopath?

Posted in Uncategorized at 8:34 am

Was Osho a psychopath? If so, it would seem quite bizarre he would indulge in ‘moralizing about moralizing’ like a second rate student of Nietzsche who never read a book of Kant on ethics. First, this series of books are from the Osho disciple sausage machine of homogenized ‘osho-ism’ so we aren’t quite sure who is speaking (there is no such book in the original Rajneesh/Poona hardback series, but there are core quotations that make discussion reasonably on track).
Was Osho a psycopath? There term is psychiatric but it seems psychiatry would not correctly assess a figure like Osho. Was Gurdjieff Beelzebub? In the latter case he admitted to being a demon. In many ways his imitator Osho appears demonic but he only confessed to being a ‘buddha’, not a demon. (Many hindus thought Buddha Gautama a demon and his path a journey into hell, and Osho charged some faction of late ‘esoteric’ buddhists with creating nazism with a drone Hitler). .But Osho’s claim to be ‘enlightened’ is subject to severe doubt such is the sheer chaos of his movement with its drug money, prostitution, and criminality, to say nothing of Osho’s drug habit and shenanigans .with his dentist. It seems Osho was apparently brazen enough to fake enlightenment (with a brief higher state of consciousness soon waning, hence the convenient talk of being ‘beyond enlightenment’) and create a neo-buddhist religion without a buddha.
If the book gets two stars instead of one it is because it is a challenge to even worse religious morality, witness the truly dreadful shambles of the Mosaic myth and its canon of commandments. Yet the latter had at least the primitive almost charming archaism of a primitive Canaanite world making a first attempt at a monotheistic moral law. in the context of the barbarism of child sacrifice (whose dilemmas (?) persist into the Old Testament. The christians quickly sensed a problem and attempted one of the first universal principle corrections with the theme of love.
The Osho answer is another stab at a universal one-liner in a brand of ‘new agey’ jargon: consider the blurb on the back cover: ‘I don’t say cultivate morality, I say become more conscious and you will be moral…’ We should note there is a further contribution here by another Osho must have imitated, Crowley, with his ‘do what thou will …’ (with a love lemma thrown in). The apotheosis here must be Crowley’s sacrifice of a frog, hey, do not what thou wilt…please…
The world has mored into a reformation beyond ‘buddhas’ perhaps, if Osho is no buddha and cannot think through the issues of morality. Let us note the large moral baggage of buddhism, and the indic/yogic priniciple of karma. The doctrines of Karma are inchoate yet have suffered a strong rebuttal from a number of new age ‘gurus’ who have declared there is no such thing as ‘karma’. But the realm of advaita perhaps rightly points to the possibility of some kind of ‘imprint’ of action in one life passing into the next at the level of some deeper aspect of self (in the usual muddle of concepts here): but then what is the canon of karmic judgment (our version can avoid this). This complicates the question with kantian unknowables as metaphysics, which doesn’t mean they are wrong, But the issues are now too complex for resolution: we must resolve the issue of soul, reincarnation, and the nature of the ‘between lives’ bardo and its relation to questions of physics. Small wonder we seek refuge, in vain, in one liners from the ‘Prophet’. Osho’s one liner is clearly another muddle: we can’t define what we mean by ‘conscious’, And we can’t therefore resolve the question of who is a buddha. And we are stuck finally with the ambiguity of who is a buddha, and further the ambiguity of what happens to buddhas after they die, and what relation religious movements, with their ersatz moralities, have to dead ‘founders’ (who may or may not be buddhas). It is said that ‘buddhas’ pass beyond the realm of existence and rebirth but we can’t be sure of this and we can’t assess whether these ‘entities’ don’t still interact with worldly beings: if they do they can’t have surpassed existence,
We confront the buddhas equivalent of covert agent psycopaths with a license to kill.
Osho in chapter 3 actually comes out and states that murder and rape are only wrong if they are done without awareness, and that’s new age nonsense from a horse’s ass claiming to be a buddha.
Imagine civil society on such a principle: these yogis have spent too much time renouncing the world and living in a forest. Civil society does not compute. But Osho is the worse for not renouncing anything and grafting a spurious buddhist canon onto capitalist free for all.
It is ironic that a rascal like Nietzsche sensed the problem but then got it wrong because he was stuck in scientism: why would these would be buddhas trust his judgment in a spurious modernism grafted on to ancient legacies, this without reading what Nietzsche is referring to: Kant, how in one way was the first man in history to see an answer: the categorical imperative, a logical act of mind deliberating acts of will. No doubt Nietzsche though he saw beyond Kant, but this seems doubtful. We should be wary even of kantian one liners, but surely Kant got one part of the issue right, a true historical first. Kant was no saint, nor a prophet, but a philosopher (perhaps that’s a relief, but he may have violated his own imperative). Unfortunately his work is not really a canon of ethics in practice and is still somehow primitive or incomplete (note the confusion over lying in a classic critique of Kant) but it is perhaps the first partially successful approach to the incoherence of religious morality, to which we should add the new age Osho style canon. Again, the problem is the ambiguity of the term conscious, and fallacy that some kind of mindfulness exercise makes anything you do ‘OK’.
Crowley (and better Gurfjieff, or else his student Bennett) at least got one thing right: the issue is not consciousness, but ‘will’. Which is what?
The universal muddle of ethics is not surprising: we have no real understanding of the ‘will’. Science can’t find it, can’t discuss ‘free will’, but neither can the ‘buddhas’ who are stuck on consciousness and negate or deny the will. But Crowley’s ‘will’ is based on a suspicious practice resembling the path to enlightenment. And this climatically results by report in some explosion as the Will. But the spurious texts such as the canon of Abramelin the Mage, a scrofulous text that Crowley himself admits attracts the entrance of ‘demons’. The path to the will can also be warned of as leading to the mass production of demons.
Perhaps Crowley’s naivete can be corrected by the view of Bennett (The Dramatic Universe) in his systematic study of the ‘will’ on all scales with its careful distinction of the mechanical self, the conscious/pseudo True Self (ambiguously doubloon), the True Self, the Individuality, and more beyond that. The consciousness of the pseudo self, the true self, and the individuality potentially resolve the confusions but still don’t solve the issue of ethics. Some future science, neuroscience, some kantian revision, more intelligent of that rascal huck finn Nietzsche, and a post-buddhist practive without caudillo buddhist gangsters, and we can see a new man emerge for the first time with a real consciousness and morality…


Monotheism in retreat

Posted in Uncategorized at 4:03 am



 Stress, epigenetics and the dangers of the gurdjieff work…

Posted in Uncategorized at 8:10 am

The deliberate creation of stress, the creation of psychological diseases in ‘disciples’, the crippling of lifestyles and biographies with black magic, the endless occult shenanigans of the rogue sufi gurdjieff deserves to be denounced and in the light of epigenetics we must expect monstrosities in the rebirth cycles of such shadow gurus…What is the connection with sufistic/yogic traditions?

It is by now well established that people who suffer trauma directly during childhood or who experience their mother’s trauma indirectly as a fetus may have epigenetically based illnesses as adults. More controversial is whether epigenetic changes can be passed on from parent to child.

Source: Epigenetics: The Evolution Revolution | by Israel Rosenfield | The New York Review of Books

Dialectics of the ‘dialectic’…

Posted in Uncategorized at 7:58 am

Source: Dialectics of the ‘dialectic’…


The Shocking Truth About Russia’s Troll Campaign

Posted in Uncategorized at 7:03 am

the deeper invisible conspiracy against democracy by the gurus…

Source: The Shocking Truth About Russia’s Troll Campaign


A cautious defense of panpsychism  …?

Posted in Uncategorized at 7:43 am

Source: A cautious defense of panpsychism  …?


G entity’s abuse of gurdjieffianity…

Posted in Uncategorized at 5:37 am

G entity’s trackdown and predation of ‘disciples’, especially former disciples of ouspensky…

there goes a new ager, he thinks he has a spiritual path…

Posted in Uncategorized at 5:35 am

is the new age movement an occult crime spree?
the dangers of buddhism, sufism, yoga…
beware of ‘spiritual paths: they are the objects of predation…
abandon all public spiritual paths and create your own hidden path…be careful you are a fool no doubt and will create something worse…

The religious right as evidence of the dissolution of xtianity

Posted in Uncategorized at 2:52 am

Source: The religious right as evidence of the dissolution of xtianity


buddhism has subtlely coopted nirvana with a fake religion…//Nirvana can seem an exotic metaphysical idea until you look closer | Aeon Essays

Posted in Uncategorized at 4:07 am

Source: Nirvana can seem an exotic metaphysical idea until you look closer | Aeon Essays


The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World: Catherine Nixey

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:56 am

Source: The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World: Catherine Nixey: 9780544800885: Amazon.com: Books


a unique form of stupidity…//Did philosopher Alexander Dugin, aka “Putin’s brain,” shape the 2016 election? | Salon.com

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:47 am

Source: a unique form of stupidity…//Did philosopher Alexander Dugin, aka “Putin’s brain,” shape the 2016 election? | Salon.com