8 Religious People Who Were Not Oppressors
Throughout history, important figures of different religious backgrounds promoted positive change for the world.
It is time to stop the waves of harsh attacks here, and, resummarizing my points, consider the need for a new future for New Agers in the realm of radical activism. That means learning to stand up to Tibetan/sufi fascists, if you can detect them at all. The New Age must be able to warn the world of the unconscious programming that will attempt to destroy radicals.
The sad reality I suspect is that the planetary crisis of man has noone who can stand up to the hidden fascists, and that change is being prompted from alien worlds looking it desperation at human paralysis and ultra-rightwing control.
It is time perhaps, to be a politician here, and I can start with my new materials on the question of modernity, communism, and capitalist economics…
I am sorry to be impolite, but these ‘new friends’ won’t be that, and I have issued an indirect manifesto for a ‘new age’ movement ‘moving’ toward the left, and in search of a ‘new communism’.
The reactionary character of too much new age thinking condemns it, and the postmodern/antimodern attack on modern civilization as something a cult of gurus is going to replace is ridiculous.
I would enjoy a new circle of friends as suggested by the commenter Bhola, but such friends would open to attack by my sufi enemies, guess who….
And the new age movement is going to end up crippled by sufis like Mr. Gold who will attack figures who start to show consciousness. What’s with this creep? His obsession to dominate is dangerous.
A new age movement is about creating a new era of human spirituality, and, perhaps, religion. It is not about letting archaic buddhism turn into a fascist antimodernism, or sufistic fanatics start their occult tactics against ‘atheists’.
We need to start over with a new set of principles, new movements, and some activism on the socio-political front. After all their postmodern/antimodernism these ‘old agers’ are going to big fans of the worst forms of capitalism.
I took down my review (plus comment) of Adhyashanti’s book at Amazon. I had indicated a possible dialogue, fat chance there, so bye.
Don’t call Jesus a revolutionary if you don’t mean it.
Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic
Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic
60 used & new from $10.86
0 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Revolutions per second: the paths of Jesus and Buddha in a time of revolution, April 11, 2014
Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic (Hardcover)
At a time of social crisis one is drawn to a spiritual teacher who will place before ‘Jesus’ the adjective ‘revolutionary’. So is Adyashanti a revolutionary? Or will the denotation be undone as mere metaphor by the tide of reactionary false consciousness that overtakes one lineage after another. The test of a revolutionary is revolution. And the test of Jesus is also the mystery of Judas. We may not renounce revolution in the name of surrender to, what, god? That path lead many revolutionaries to atheist nihilism.
These are hard questions, but this is a fascinating work which should raise a question about east and west and the ways pointed to by dharma (buddhist or other, the path to enlightenment) and the ambiguous spiritual ‘spiritual awakening’ of those in the traditions of monotheism, where lately a sufistic substream has both clarified and obscured the ‘path’ implied in the religions of the one god. The sufi Gurdjieff spoke of this kind of spiritual awakening: it is a fitting business for such devils on the way: unlike ‘enlightenment’ the term ‘spiritual awakening’ is vague, and will pass as honor among thieves. The distinction matters if so few Christians have found a real path. We must consider in some wonder whether Jesus and Mohammed were enlightened men, and how the issues of non-violence are to be understood by those who move toward a revolution in time. In many ways the path of Jesus might better serve social transformation than the indifferent stance as to samsara of those who renounce the world. Mohammed was clear on these questions, and the Jihad is the ambiguity once again of what is revolutionary.
This book asks an important question, one that many westerners will suddenly discover as key to their failure to find a path: they have already tried to combine the path of Jesus and Buddha, with an unclear result. By posing the issues directly the author here will force the seeker to confront his new age schizophrenia.Sometimes we are not clear to each other. Here we will know when the revolution comes and perhaps meet comrades on the way.
Your initial post: Apr 12, 2014 8:13:30 AM PDT
John C. Landon says:
Some remarks on the book at the blog Darwiniana by the reviewer John Landon,
On Adhyashanti’s `Resurrecting Jesus’
I am looking at a Kindle version of Adyashanti’s new book on Resurrecting Jesus, and I find my reservations getting stronger. I should say at once it is a robust book and has a more focussed take on a putative path in the Gospels than most. But that’s the problem, in general: noone can make the Christian fundamentals into a real spiritual path, and I have to wonder if this book is any exception. The book implies that a buddhist starting point was the case, and we should wonder what place meditation is to have in a Christian context. The Buddhist path is clear, specific, focussed and not centered on an individual (although admittedly the figure of Gautama comes to falsely dominate the path here also_). The Gospels cannot offer this, books like this notwithstanding. So what is the point here? To worship Jesus as an enlightened mystic? or to follow the path of enlightenment?
So all these attempts to compete with buddhism don’t add up. However, this approach may have value in ways unclear to me. Yet, the path to enlightenment
is complex enough, confusing enough, to make one wary of books such as this, that add one more layer of confusing mystery. Nowhere does Jesus make any statement about a path to enlightenment. It is a sop to Xtians confronting buddhism to make them feel safe next to the real buddhist juggernaut.
And it is not clear if this is really the way to interpret Jesus. Jesus is complex, subtle, and, unfortunately, historically obscure. His roots lie in the antiquities of `gnosticism’ stretching back to Egypt and before. His connection to the Indian stream is not clear. It may be there, and the connection of Xtianity to buddhism is one of the riddles of the Axial Age. But the actual format of the spirituality of the Gospels, and/or Jesus, points to something different, living in its own spiritual world/
Adhyashanti comes off as a potted plant here: the ingeniously braided path between zen, and jesus is too clever and too pat to scotch suspicions unconscious manipulations have not pulled a rabbit out of a hat here. Who’s running this fellow? There a lot of sufi operators who could cast their spell to produce such books, so seemingly sincere.
Xtians are very threatened by buddhism at this point, and this `daydream’ of an Xtian buddhism is suspicious from the start. It wouldn’t quite matter if it were not true that Xtinaity is a soporific: it puts its disciples into a trance of recerent submission. That’s not religion, it is brainwashing. Still, this book my backfire very nicely and drive Xtians to explore the real path to enlightenment. If this path befuddles a single seeker who might have reached enlightenment from its classic paths, then it is a bad book indeed.
I defy anyone to really find a path in the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus had one, but he doesn’t really divulge it.
Meanwhile, Jesus is someone else in my book, than a buddhist in Judaic costume. His riddle enters the sufism of Islam, and is an ancient strain of something quite different.
The previous post on Ouspensky reenforces what we have said here many times. The solution is simple: NEVER submit to the spiritual authority of SUFIS, or more especially the false construct of authority created in the Gurdjieff ‘work’. All the basic concepts are misleading, mystifications, and worse. They are all bogus. What is the work? and what grounds is there for ‘ends justfifies the means’ criminality in the people who do the work? None whatever. The whole game is a series of non-standard redefinitions by Gurdjieff. The work, the fourth way school, are bogus constructs designed to displace definition behind the mystique of artificial propaganda.
The idea of a fourth way school generates tremendous stress in its victims who are cautioned about the extreme rarity of such schools, and the reasons for total submission lest such a unique opportunity be lost….
That crap surrounds Gold’s totally hyped idiocy about what he calls his ‘school’.
The discussions of fourth way schools in Ouspensky are so overhyped that one should be suspicious at once. No actual ‘school’ could match the near sci-fi requirements.
NEVER fall for the ‘fourth way school’ deception.
The question of Ouspensky is of great interest, but his view of things was almost as bad as that of Gurdjieff. That’s why he won’t show himself: he is a new person in a new life and civilization. The reactionary fellow from history is dead and gone. But his battle with Gurdjieff is telling: he bequeathed to the world ISOM, one of the most effective pieces of propaganda in the history of religion, and that is being used by all sorts of sufis gangsters like Gold who want to keep Ouspensky suppressed like a slave so they can use his book as they please. ‘Ouspensky’ is going to fight until the Gurdjieff work is dead and gone. We don’t need anymore reactionary premodern crypto-fascist religious movements.
Ouspensky’s point is clear: people can recruit an unlimited number of suckers using ISOM, and once in the fold they can be exploited very easily in the name of Ouspensky.
It is time to make ISOM an historical artifact. Its message is not exactly that deep at this point, and it is filled with the deceptions of Gurdjieff. Its message is, how profound, meditation in action.
It is entirely natural that the ‘Ouspensky entity’ should consider it that way.
The rule of thumb: don’t buy into any spiritual come-on that uses Ouspensky’s ISOM. The promise of a fourth way school is in every case entirely bogus. The whole spiel of Gurdjieff is crap.
This is a charming list of gurus, thanks to Bhola for the links, but we/I here have a different set of problems and issues:
If truth be told we are dealing with something uniquely different here: an echo chamber of the reincarnated “Ouspensky” and his onging battle with the ‘Gurdjieff’ entity. This blog came into existence along these lines, as I suspect, but I am unsure of my relationship to that. But a lot of sufi and other bigwigs are mad as hell, and can’t seem to face the reality that we live in a new era. The whole New Age movement was pervaded by a kind of postmodern attempt to overthrow the modern world and replace it with, gosh, what??? a dictatorship of fascist tulkus??? what? World History and the Eonic Effect destroyed this fantasy, and the New Age movement is set to remorph into a real New Age movement for, what, a new age! Will this generate a set of new world religions? We don’t know, and we must hope to create an open society of spirituality.
I think, however, that a new era based on a New Communism that can deal with the coming of postcapitalism is going to be the replacement for a ‘world religion’, we have seen enough of those, but the dangers of a totalitarian system coming to the fore are palpable.
The irony is that democratic capitalism is becoming a form of totalitarianism. We need a democratic communism.
We need to try and forestall the Leviathan effects here with something like a common corpus of teachings (e.g sufi teachings on the social conditioning of religion) that speaks to the future. But in general the sufi world is controlled by reactionaries. We won’t be friends, sorry.
A useful comment from ‘Bhola’.
But what am I to do with this list of gurus? I am talking about people who are victims of loathsome blackmagicians. The aery fairie New Age circuit would never be of any use to the victims of Gurdjieff and Gold.
07.18.14 at 1:01 pm · Edit
What about Adhyashanti and Mooji. They seem to be the new mostra famous gurus,
With interesting message.
07.18.14 at 1:12 pm · Edit
In fact there are a lot of Gurus on this line, like Tony Parsons. Satyaprem, Gangaji, Papaji(gone), Ramana(gone),Dolano, Bentinho Massaro, Nisargadatta(gone). Batgap.com has a lot of others.
I think the O. entity is trying to find person/persons who, lingering as here over the legacy, are then driven away to produce a continuation for a future global Sannyas, with leftist perspectives, and a guardian against occult fascists. I am a person with many assets for this, enough to consider my limitations also, and perhaps too many liabilities. It is a useful ‘gedanken’ experiment.
The needs, requirements, are tricky and complex: penetrating the sufi complex, dealing with buddhism, the list continues…sanskrit? Indian religious history, science….
What about darwinism? what about the modern/postmodern question….? The chances of anyone realizing these tricky combinations is so low that i suddenly see why there is a brief interest in my case.
I touched on all of these issues, but may not be up to the potential task. PR types who compromise will soon take it over and that will be the end of it.
Anyone, time to refocus here. Study my case a little bit, if you wish to test your future…
Every guru is open to critique: I found a weak spot in Osho: he is a Nietzsche fan, it seems, and has skipped the sources of Nietzsche in Kant and German Classical Philosophy. Trap. A whole age could fall into this trap, so I think higher spiritual powers are wary of his corpus, magnificent as it is for starters.
Study Last and First Men: the issue of past and future spirituality, future evolution (every new age guru has gotten this wrong)…
It is impossible to penetrate sufism, so one can only hope for the best. Corrupt sufis want to create a mafia/sufi controlled fake religion that feeds off the energies of its dupes. Fighting to prevent that is frantic, because the villains have immense occult resources. A future without religion, stripped of everything, is one solution. Like the New Atheist movement.
Leftists might realize that an esoteric left exists and makes the political pedigree of these gurus irrelevant. The future will produce its own spiritualities.
Time to move on: the whole issue of a leftist New Age project is a total failure. And the gurus will impersonate each other to attack such a project and its leftists.
The esoteric left is real but it won’t come from sufis or gurus. And that incluedes the ‘Jesus’ phantom. mostly demonic stand ins.
Leftists are better off with historical materialism. But that ism is so contracting people are driven into Faustian pacts with gurus. Drop all of it. A generalized secular perspective, beyond theism/atheism, able to study religion, yet be wary of the threat to one’s autonomy.
This is embarrassing to me: I have botched my book publication with this bullshit about gurus, and it has scared off a lot of leftists.
Perhaps I can repair the damage: but the only guru who has said anything favorable about communism is Osho, but his leftist sentiments are pretty thin soup.
Let’s be done with this bullshit. We need indulge in no disrespect: we simply acknowledge we can’t do spiritual paths with dead entities.
The rise of ‘sufism’ in the New Age movement created a series of anomalies, and the generally retrograde character of the movement was made worse by the deceptions, disinformation, malevolent black magic, abuse of authoritarianism, hatred of westerners (I forgive that one and drop the case), use of Jewish fronts for hidden agendas, etc…
The remarkable thing is that ‘sufism’ has never been defined, even as people’s lives are on the line to the stated authority of sufi ‘sheiks’, a term never defined nor given decent examples or documentation.
With Ej Gold these abuses are acute and the idea of a Parliament of Crows (a parodist reference to The Parliament of Birds) is a way to propose a court of legal, extra-legal, assemblies, for formal discussion and arraingment of ‘sheik’ figures by their clients, disciples, victims.
With Ej Gold this could take the form of ‘legal’-type interview and cross-examination to determine the nature and extent of practices of witchcraft, mindfuck (to be defined), unconscious suggestion, punishment via ‘withcraft’ for punishment, punishments in general for disciple failures to ‘surrender’. We see in sufism a system where spiritual authorities assume the right of life and death over their flocks, a state of affairs so outrageous there can probably be no real future for sufism in open societies.
Repeated spiritual rape by ‘sufi authorities’ is a notion so grotesque its Islamic context itself must come under examination.
Figures such as Gold are in reality conmen who have never given any indication whatsover of the grounds to claim being a sufi, grounds to be a sufi leader (‘sheik’), and the assumption is that he is simply an impostor.
Such legal interactions (according to a definable natural law, perhaps) would need to be monitored by a higher spiritual authority, and be conducted under rules of perjury.
This nexus of ideas is almost comic in the context of the sufi thugs, criminals, conmen, pathological liars, false prophets, and just anything but a spiritual teacher.
In the absence of this kind review the situation simply deteriorates into a hidden magical war of all parties.
One thinks back to the period of Idries Shah and his book The Sufis: the amount of sheer deceptive falsehood in that book is remarkable in retrospect…
Time to condemn the whole legacy and to warn in extreme terms those who suggestibility makes them vulnerable in this circle…