Garbled samkhya (classic samkhya is pretty garbled too, update 2018)
I am still considering some work on a DU commentary
despite reservations about the idea:
The reason to proceed is to liberate the classic Samkhya from the distortions that it undergoes with Gurdjieff and then Bennett.
It is a pity to lose the use of that ancient discourse as the wiseacred version gets promoted as some kind of authoritative form of spiritual psychology.
One of the suspicious oddities of Gurdjieff’s deceptive ‘teaching’ is the way he constantly cites ‘ancient teachings’, which he never explains to any degree, and which are impossible for anyone to use, while he never mentions one teaching very close to home, and with historical documentation, the classical Samkhya, which he disguises behind a hocus pocus terminology and a garbled set of concepts.
The issue suddenly clarifies slightly in Bennett’s Dramatic Universe, where an interesting version appears, although one with flawed foundations (who could hope to do it right).
In Gurdjieff, the constand concealment, or ‘bullshitter’s’ version of one thing or another in unusuable pieces, teachings designed to fail and go nowhere, one is left almost headscratching about what this game is.
It seems as if the ensnaring of innocent dupes given a pseudo-teaching is the object of the exercise, these people the ‘lambs’ or patsies behind the ripoff.