This post and James’ comment are worth rereading: we may have gotten derailed, or James may have misunderstood my intentions.
He seems to have had a bad reaction to Bennett, echoing my critical stance.
My intent was to pursue the expose of the ‘Gurdjieff Con’, but a figure such as Bennett is a slightly different case (as MBFM insisted, B was really as much a victim as a perpetrator).
I think that Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe is filled with some relevant ideas that need more than blanket rejection.
James wants to cut to the Pali tradition, fascinating, and a good topic for this blog, for various reasons (I cannot, however, endorse anything).
The point about Bennett is that we have lost the key to the most obvious solution to our lack of spiritual psychologies: Samkhya. Can we recover it?
In attempting to do this we get waylaid by the whole Gurdjieff agenda.
We can toss Bennett into the cauldrom and melt it down. It’s basic framework is actually transparent after a while.