It was Osho who seemed to have realized that Gurdjieff with his excessively theoretical teaching precipitated the failure of the whole thing. He called him a hopeless failure (I might make the same criticism of Osho…) and he seems to be right. Bennett is no slouch but has he really clarified the ‘triad’? Did he really understand it? His essay at least shows that the history here is so entrenched and long-lasting that it hardly makes sense to reject the tradition outright.
Gurdjieff just may be right: some utterly ancient version (the ‘real thing’) must have appeared in history and then undergone decay. Despite my skepticism, it remains arguable that superstitious speculation would not have invented an odd subject like ‘samkhya’ or the triad. But it seems to me that if indic samkhya with its three gunas is a confused version followed by the outlandish brand preposterously concocted by the christian theologians the odds are piling up against any resolution of a age old muddle.
The entry of gurdjieff here is remarkable. Once again the whale resurfaces (after some hidden effort here perhaps in the sufi world) and seems to have set the record straight with what seem like a clarification, finally. And then Bennett his student really takes off into the blue yonder with his The Dramatic Universe, a book with a lot of innovative ideas, and its own confusions. With his ideas of n-term systems he seems to have nailed it. And he adds the idea of a seven-term system, and lo & behold he has what seems like the entry into science of the gurdjieff crown jewels, the law of three and the law of seven.
And then Bennett ends up writing a lot of Gurdjieff promo at a much lower standard, including books about the enneagram which is a pile of baloney. And one’s suspicions rise again. Bennett will play the game of the ‘Work’ and as a result a kind of suspicion arises. He is really just a cultic believer so smart he can bullshit us based on no real solution to the triad question, what to say of the seven term system essential for the developmental thinking in this what now seems a mere cult based once again on garbled samkhya, itself a garbled impostor of something still more ancient.
I will simply conclude by saying that I don’t understand the core concepts here, and none of the wide range of books here (check out the dozens of books here at Amazon, all seemingly confused).
I am unable to proceed. The key to the riddle is lost.
The Gurdjieff movement is very strange: everyone in it is confused, writing more and more confused books. The issue of the triad is a case in point. I remain neutral here, and have often tried to resolve the question. But the more I read the less convinced I become. The stance of the cult is not that this is a situation requiring clarification but the charge of disobedience against the master for not seconding the original affirmation. That’s the trap: the whole game is taken on faith, a misplaced faith, and no real thought is allowed…
Osho had a point…!!!