Bennett’s curious crypto-atheism
The question of theism and atheism haunts Gurdjieffianity? Was Gurdjieff really a theist? I am suspcious, but don’t really know. The curious blend of Samkhya in disguise and seeming theistic commentary makes the question obscure.
What about Bennett? Again, I can’t be sure, but his statements in DU make clear that he was not a standard theist. His Samkhya cascade yields the primordial triad at its basis, before the six, twelve, etc, laws, and the ‘one’ behind that ‘triad’ is unknowable, as he says. Which sounds agnostic, de facto theistic, and de facto atheistic. But then in his discussion, he redefines ‘god’ around his triadic categories, relating ‘god’ to the third reconciling triad in the cascade of ‘freedom’ triads. Anyone who does that, like Kant, is redefining ‘god’ from a stance of disbelieving passage from dogmatic theism.
Note then that Xtianity could just as well absorb atheism into its perspectives, the more so since Xtian beliefs here have become infantile projections.
The way to do that is clear from Bennett. but in general the whole point of the ‘Son of God’ theme is the realization that ‘god’ is beyond man, man can at best approach the question via the manifestation of the ‘Son of God’ factor, which simply means that something emerges from the higher to the lower.
That might help to release Xtians from the ‘god’ obsession. A new language is needed, the triad of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost deserves paper airplane treatment at this point, but the issue is clear: a true secular post-Xtian religion based on the Xtian tradition can just as well talk to atheists as theists. The real issues are beyond the gibbersish served up on both sides.