Note 2018: The gmancon series later turned into Debreifing Gurdjieffianity (Amazon)
New age myths and the /gmancon series
I was reading one of the links to the Ichazo series (Rodomontade2), and found this passage on New Ages.
Oscar Ichazo: “You know, there is a tradition – and more than a tradition, it’s a fact – that every 2,500 years we have a change. The first to say that was the holy Gautama, and he was speaking about the tradition of the Buddhas in mankind. Gautama was the number three Buddha. 2,500 years before him there was one, and 2,500 years before that there was another. Gautama spoke directly of the next 2,500 years, and it is in the tradition of Buddhism that in another 2,500 years we are going to achieve the perfect state as humanity. That perfect state is called Maitreya. Maitreya is going first to incarnate in somebody and then just spread……..
Whatever is or should be, should be now – that one who should give the entire science for the next 2,500 years, as it was in the case of Gautama. From the time of Gautama up to now there has been no new news, nothing really new. Arica is new. We have built over Gautama and gone further………..”
This distorted myth is addressed more generally in the /gmancon series (see the links section), and it occurs in a large number of variants. A study of World History And The Eonic Effect indirectly throws light on this question, and critiques these New Age myths, the issues of which Gautama didn’t get quite straight.
They had an intuition of something, but the whole idea is something much larger than religion.
Surprising to say, you can make a case that world history since Sumer shows a strange rhythm based on 2400 years. If that sounds like strange thinking you can look at the careful demonstration in WHEE, which simply leaves the demonstration without much interpretation, as is. I have no real explanation, or axe to grind on this data. But the data shows something far different from the distorted confusion of standard ‘new agers’. The problem is that these ‘New Age’ gurus got the ‘new age’ wrong, and thought it should be some kind of spiritual revolt against modernity. This pervasive idea which is completely wrong is one aspect of the repeated failures of all these guru movements. They aim for the future, but are in the past. The latest lunatic here is Andrew Cohen who is gungho for the great ‘postmodern’ age of spirituality.
It just won’t happen.
The timing of this ‘new age’ is something different, and can’t be brought about by gurus, who are simply too ignorant to create new levels of culture.
I have already commmented on Gurdjieff’s version of this.
I recommend a study of the eonic effect. The ‘new age’ of the Buddha that he thought he foresaw is not what anyone expected, and it is if anything liberation from gurus!
I suggest looking at the /gmancon series (or WHEE) to see how the remarkable sense of the Axial Age that Buddha is said to have had was only partial. It had nothing to do with the ‘wheel of dharma’.
The whole business of Maitreya is complete nonsense or disinformation.
More on this, update: Perhaps I didn’t quite make my point clear. The point of the study of the eonic effect is to look at the rise of the Axial Age and then the rise of modernity together as a larger phenomenon. It is essential before getting snared in the kind of thinking cited (and ascribed to Gautama, whether fairly or not) to look at the timing of the effect. The real ‘New Age’ is modernity itself, with its keynote of freedom and autonomy. The retrograde ‘new agism’ of all these gurus is already a late reaction to the very ‘new age’ they had attempted to predict. A remarkable muddle, and a clear indication that history moves on a different level than these gurus who think they are guiding human evolution! They aren’t, and we can see one reason why all these examples of schools end up in chaotification. They are ass-backwards.
Again I recomend a study of world history, in light of the ‘eonic effect’, a nice slow bibliographically informed study going through all the pieces so that the ‘effect’ is clear in one’s mind, and the place of the evolution of religion in that context made plain. We are constantly beseiged by interlopers on these questions, but the reality is a little plainer, if one can get the job done of studying world history very carefully in a unified manner, without the kind of restricted focus that comes from thinking in terms of one culture, or one religion.