UG krishnamurti is interesting and useful but my take is different. Enlightenment is a floating term used in different ways. The lack of any good definition makes deception easy. Saying enlightenment doesn’t exist isn’t really the point. But his anger at the whole process is significant.
To me the issues are that the traditions of buddhism are played out and the prior traditions of hinduism are falling into chaos. Here the hopeless confusions/wars between sufis/yogis/gurus/xitianity/islam have made religion, yoga, buddhism dead letters.
The authority of gurus has expanded into something it is not, and is a dangerous occult racket putting innocent seekers at risk.
A large commune like Osho’s is going to end up making scientology look benign. the three way system of murder has a real opening in the overlay of Osho/Gurdjieff/Crowley bait and switch. Stay the fuck away from all of it.
Enlightenment is not a given you pursue as a seeker. It is part of the question seeking an answer.
Buddhism in my critique has a hidden history that became fascist at its end, but which was somehow corrupted in the era after the destruction of INdian buddhism. that trauma must have made the sangha vicious. But the whole legacy was an experiment not present before in the hindu stream. I fear that the plight of the majority was spiritual death and zombiehood in a fascist army. Best to move on and avoid the Tibetans completely.
The boddisattwa path is an absurdity. Perhaps it was intended as a hoax. But taken at face value it is a disastrous quick route to zombiehood.
Get the fuck away from the boddhisattwa path. You don’t owe reality such an idiotic gesture.
I am probably not enlightened but have had multiple experiences no doubt like it. Should I have never had those experiences? Should I never again have such experiences. Those experiences may be pale beside a larger ‘experience’ but to wait til the end of time to get the matter straight is a species of bullshit, thence an exploitation. I will defer final judgement until the facts can be better known. But somehow curious happened at the onset of Mahayana, which is a cousin to xtianity. And we can see something severely wrong with that religion. It may be the Mahayana aspect: a fraud of public deception to keep a crowd of believers away from enlightenment, etc…
Buddhism, caput, Mahayana, caput, hinduism a dead mass of rotten vegetables, caput. Osho a sex fiend jerk off tantric with one Big enlightenment experience like my small ones, and at the end he was losing that.
Three toots, you are out. The sufis are next: the four tooters: they are bogus idiots. All their methods are stolen from yogis. There is a hidden set of paths but they are so rare and probably never intersected with sufism.
Much of the hard hat sufism was really stolen from buddhism.
So much for the four tooters…
I know what you’re thinking: consulting sarlo’s rating list, what about the two and half toot cases. Can there be two and half toots?
We hkave suggested a few exit strategies:
1. don’t do a spiritual path, adopt stealth tactics beyond formats. A ‘path’ is a profitable entity to exploit, cf. remarks on EJ Gold and ‘treadmill paths’
2. We suggested ‘stealth neo-advaita’ as a for a ‘debriefing via Advaita’: but stay away from Ramana Maharis, and his gang, e.g. the vicious Poonja setting people up: change the labels on Advaita, or just study the history..
Advaita is its own illusion, and was supported by neo-brahmins like Shankara, very ugly sources and fanatics about caste for what we see now as Hindutva…
3. figures like the two Krishnamurti’s give ample warning…
5. my remarks on ‘new ages’ is worth reading: the cycle of age periods is eroding all these ancient paths…Chritianity, buddhism, Islam are slipping away…
5. Never indulge in spiritual surrender. Try to abjure any such you have already granted and be prepared to fight for your life…
It is a bit late in the game to be arguing about Chogyam Trungpa’s alcoholism. If you have followed this blog this year you will see the trail to buddhist fascism arriving in this vicinity. These hdden buddhists are not what you think and the whole conspiracy to destroy modernity, a futile gambit, is hidden behind the whole Tibetan game.
Samkhya is a living spiritual path in India, but after Gurdjieff it threatens to chaotify and succumb to his tactics of muscling in on other people’s spiritualities, and the ‘wow, he’s a master’ gambit will make this plunder effective, maybe. Or maybe the tradition will resist this, as it does with predatory sufis.\Let us note that Gurdjieff never had the courtesy to identity his subject as ‘samkhya’. But as Anirvan points out, that’s all it is. Gurdjieff’s approach is malevolent: take someone’s spiritual legacy, esoterize it, i.e. create an exoteric bullshit factor and obscure the subject with an esoteric claim, etc..
Next to this Bennett has produced a way out of the confusion: a clear, open, non-Gurdjieffian attempt to expound the subject in a new way, an approach that is insightful but flawed. But it can be taken as a way to allow people to defend themselves against the Gurdjieff/sufi heist.
Bennett’s approach can be distinguished from that of Gurdjieff, and taken on its own merits pro or con. We can simply discard the Gurdjieff BS/esoteric gambit. Anyone who disagrees can read Beelzebub ten more times and tell us specifically what it says re: Samkhya.
But Bennett’s DU is full of so much distraction that it is almost unusable. Plus it introduces a lot of Gurdjieff material that shouldn’t be there. The whole thing is a lost cause, but a clear discussion of the route to constructing the basic Samkhya scheme he demonstrates can be extracted and might prove useful. Noone can say that this is Gurdjieff’s property. Instant bullshit! to the face of any G groupies who try that. Gurdjieff’s ripoff of Samkhya has probably destroyed the subject for everyone.
Meanwhile, the Indian legacy of Samkhya is probably OK the way it is.
In this paper it is proposed to discuss certain important points made against Osho by a battery of critics from various quarters. Osho has ever been controversial. Even the most radical mystics of his age were, generally speaking, uncomfortable with
NY Times, July 19 2016
In ‘Hindutva or Hind Swaraj,’ a Warning Against Hindu Nationalism
By VAIBHAV SHARMA
BANGALORE, India — The last months of U. R. Ananthamurthy’s life were tumultuous. One of India’s foremost novelists and political commentators, Mr. Ananthamurthy, who died in August 2014 at 81, had threatened to leave the country if Narendra Modi, then leading the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, won the vote in the national election. Mr. Ananthamurthy’s remarks drew vitriol, abuse and death threats from Mr. Modi’s supporters, and he remained under round-the-clock police protection for months.
In June, a political tract Mr. Ananthamurthy wrote during the final stage of his life, the parting shot of a writer who devoted substantial time to warning of the dangers of Hindu nationalism, was published to widespread acclaim. More than two years after Mr. Modi’s election as prime minister, even as many continue to fear that India’s founding values of secularism and diversity are under threat, Mr. Ananthamurthy’s voice has served as an urgent reminder of the perils of majoritarianism and hyper-nationalism.
The tract, “Hindutva or Hind Swaraj,” an excoriating critique of Mr. Modi and Hindu nationalism in India, was completed between Mr. Modi’s election in May 2014 and Mr. Ananthamurthy’s death. A novella-length tract, in the manner of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me,” the book takes the form of a conversation with the nation.
“I feel an urgent need to talk to myself,” Mr. Ananthamurthy writes in the book as he reflects on a country he says he barely recognized, “both because of the nationwide humiliation that came my way when I rejected Modi and because of Modi’s overwhelming victory that left me astounded.”
Mr. Ananthamurthy was a literary colossus in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, a province greater in size and population than England. His 1965 novel, “Samskara,” written in the Kannada language, about a Hindu society stifled by caste and tradition, is widely considered to be one of the landmarks of 20th-century Indian literature. (In “India: A Wounded Civilization,” V. S. Naipaul hailed “Samskara” and described Mr. Ananthamurthy as “a serious literary man,” a generous compliment from Mr. Naipaul, who tends to be parsimonious in his praise of fellow writers.)
Drawing on a formidable range of intellectual references, from Dostoyevsky to the epics of Hindu mythology, Mr. Ananthamurthy’s “Hindutva or Hind Swaraj” examines the two rival ideas that have shaped modern India: the plural nationalism originating from the struggle against British colonialism, led by Mohandas K. Gandhi; and the muscular, majoritarian nationalism favored by Mr. Modi and his supporters.
Mr. Ananthamurthy compares the key texts of these dominant political strains: Mr. Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj,” a riposte to British colonialism completed in 10 days, during a ship journey in 1909, and published a year later; and “Hindutva,” the 1923 founding text of Hindu nationalism, written by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a right-wing activist imprisoned by the British for his role in India’s freedom movement.
“He felt the choice was really between these two ideologies,” Vivek Shanbhag, a prominent novelist and Mr. Ananthamurthy’s son-in-law, said of Mr. Ananthamurthy. “He was saying that it’s time that we, as a nation, stop now and take a look before we blindly move forward.”
Mr. Shanbhag, who worked as a translator on the book, said Mr. Ananthamurthy could never forgive Mr. Modi for the 2002 riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat, which killed more than a thousand, most of them Muslims. Mr. Modi was chief minister of the state at the time, and many consider him culpable. “He said a person like this cannot be the prime minister,” Mr. Shanbhag added.
Aakar Patel, a prominent columnist who writes for Mint, a national daily news publication headquartered in New Delhi, said “Hindutva or Hind Swaraj” was the best book on the subject of Hindu nationalism, since Mr. Modi’s election as prime minister. “Steeped in our traditions, Ananthamurthy captures the reality as nobody else can,” Mr. Patel wrote in Mint. “It is the distilled effort of a lifetime spent in absorbing, reading, writing and observing.”
In many ways, Mr. Ananthamurthy turned out to be prophetic, including about his own death. “If Modi becomes the prime minister, it will be a big shock to me,” Mr. Ananthamurthy had told a television channel, soon after he made his threats to leave the country. “I won’t live.”
Unlike more measured critics of Mr. Modi, who saw his rise through a contemporary social and political context, Mr. Ananthamurthy, with his novelist’s temperament, mounted his criticism in ethical, psychological and civilizational terms. “People like Modi,” Mr. Ananthamurthy writes, “live in a gumbaz, a dome that echoes what they say to themselves over and over again.”
Mr. Modi’s election as prime minister has been followed by, as many feared, a climate of hostility toward minorities and renewed assaults on civil society and free expression.
Last fall, a year after Mr. Ananthamurthy’s death, dozens of writers returned their awards from the National Academy of Letters, also known as the Sahitya Akademi, to protest what they considered a rising tide of intolerance and majoritarianism gripping the country.
One incident, in particular, sparked this collective revolt of writers: the killing of M. M. Kalburgi, a noted rationalist scholar whose criticism of traditional religious practices had earned him the wrath of Hindu nationalists. (Mr. Kalburgi was shot dead in his home in Dharwad, in Karnataka, on Aug. 30 last year.)
Like Mr. Ananthamurthy, Mr. Kalburgi was part of a robust tradition of Indian-language writers serving on the front lines of social and political battles. “A Kannada or Bengali writer has a connection to his people, his culture, his society, which an English writer simply does not,” Ramachandra Guha, a historian and one of India’s best-known public intellectuals, said in an interview. “Most Indian-English writers who are acclaimed abroad have no impact on society.”
Mr. Ananthamurthy’s death caused a wave of grief across Karnataka, a state of more than 60 million people. Tens of thousands of people lined up in Bangalore, the state capital, to pay homage.
Officially, Mr. Modi offered condolences, but right-wing groups affiliated with his Bharatiya Janata Party greeted the news of Mr. Ananthamurthy’s death with raucous celebrations, setting off fireworks at the demise of a foe.
Though Hindu nationalists hounded Mr. Ananthamurthy, especially during the last months of his life, their response to “Hindutva or Hind Swaraj” has been one of unusual silence.
Mr. Patel, the columnist, said he was not surprised by the muted reaction. “What passes for the ideological right doesn’t have any investment here,” he said. “They don’t care about knowledge and learning. They care about prejudices, anger, certitude and emotion.”
Anyone moving in the fourth way circuit needs to be super careful of what happened here: rogue sufis tracking down the reincarnation of Ouspensky to destroy him, and rip off his ‘baraka’ (???)
Always be super wary of this sufi gangster: if you get/generate receive ‘spiritual energy’ a whole gang is there to try and rip it off…
And the whole ‘fourth way’ hype needs a warning that figures like Gold have tried (with a lot of success) to rip off the whole movement. Ouspensky’s ISOM is that idiot’s gift to the sufi mafia: an unlimited set of new suckers (check out amazon) who will never get a warning.
Gurdjieff for abusing Ouspensky in this way and leaving the junk he created (no more effective advertising is conceivable) as flypaper for generations to come is a new form of criminality…
I think the whole new age movement is a dead letter, but the number of suckers already trapped makes business super for a few more centuries…
Reading The Dramatic Universe, and then again the shorter Deeper Man, and trying to figure through the strangely confusing material of Bennett, it suddenly occurred to me that, in rough strokes, Bennett laid out Gurdjieff’s big secret, and in public. In rough strokes. There are aspects of Gurdjieff’s thinking that are obscurely and possibly not present in Bennett, the oulala crowd would insist here, without proof, and we may never decipher them (forget reading All and Everything: not a single commenter has ever deciphered that work) but we can put two and two together here suddenly realizing that the core is out in the open.
First, Gurdjieff wasn’t smart enough to do what Bennett tried to do in the DU and DM (deeper man…) and the topic in question is Samkhya, and the strange version we find in Ouspensky, from Gurdjieff. He may have had a crib we don’t know about, but I don’t see anyone who has figured out Bennett. This wiseacred mess we find in Ouspensky nonetheless has some insights and it must be that some sufi agent tried to reconstruct the Indian version, with embroidery. It could have been Gurdjieff. Or else there was always a deep source for Samkhya in some other tradition that somehow passed into India (I doubt the latter: I think Samkya, yoga, and tantra are Indic legacies).
But the point is that Bennett’s more complicated mess is likely to be superior in some respects to anything Gurdjieff thought. That doesn’t judge as such any forms of consciousness he developed with other methods. But I strongly doubt he reached any particularly high level of consciousness using Samkhya, which is a form of knowledge.
Bennett’s stages of understanding are not clear, but after his break with Ouspensky he seems to have interacted with some other spiritual sources. Perhaps the demiurgic powers he later depicts, or some sufi source mediating that. Bennett’s DU is a curious hodgepodge with a brilliant clue to the Samkhya, a borrowing from Schopenhauer, a confusion over Kant, and a strangely empiricist non-spiritual version of Samkhya with the noumenal/phenomenal stripped out.
Deeper Man, DM, is clearly a cooked version of samkhya: we have no real evidence this is the real thing, and we ambivalently are glad Bennett gave it the old college try and at the same time aware that he is very stilted and mechanical interpretation can’t be the real thing, but we have no idea what that was. But clearly however wrecked this must surely be superior to Gurdjieff’s ‘feeling muddle’ to the subject. We can suspect that while the nature of the ‘consciousness realization’ in Gurdjieff remains obscure, we suspect that it wasn’t ‘enlightenment’ or much better than a knowledgeable crib version of Samkhya. That can be powerful, but it is very limited in many ways. And yet the Bennett version, with multiple flaws takes over in a spontaneous and interesting version of Bennett’s own. The result is a curiously informative piece of junk.
I think that while it is possible the whole set of this material was simply window dressing, the overall impression we get is that Gurdjieff took this seriously and we see that the law of seven and the law of three are simply ‘garbage in, garbage out’ versions of Samkhya in a new disguise. Not statement of these laws is present in Samkhya as far as I know. This game is also ancient, however, and looking at the doctrine of the Trinity we see an especially gross version of garbled samkhkya.
I think that if Gurdjieff (and the Naqsbandis) were stupid enough to be taken in by the enneagram their knowledge of samkhya must have been pretty poor porridge.
Bennett heroically goes into overdrive and clarifies many things, but the influence of Whitehead has confused the discussion, and his idea of the will is a crippled Schopenhauer.
We need to rescue samkhya from Gurdjieff: some form needs to be public domain and safe to use. With Gurdjieff we see the sufi mafia is going to penetrate xtianity with exoteric flypaper.
Again, I think Gurdjieff believed some version of the Samkhya embroidered with some cosmological speculations, and that puts the subject at risk. A big ripoff of an ancient subject.
I question whether either Bennett or Gurdjieff understood the ‘law of three’ and we can see that while Bennett made some progress there his account is confusing and opaque.
So we end with nothing, and it is no use saying Gurdjieff has some deeper understanding. He has half as smart as Bennett, and Bennett could barely decipher the subject. And you can’t say it will become clear with higher consciousness. It is a knowledge based discourse, and requires the right key to it as knowledge. But with Bennett we can get a rough sense of it.