I had an email exchange that resulted in some essays from me
which I will try to reproduce as an exxay.
Nemonemini (john landon)
I am a veteran of new age movement but somewhat beyond it.
I have had however exceptional difficulties with shady new age characters,
fascists, reactionary gurus, so I consider the need to revamp spiritual legacies.
Zen Wilber (that’s what I call him) has been on my book list since when
and I have read a number of his books…
His later stuff I am not familiar with so much but
I do consider that man is poised to advance or oblivion.
I am entangled in new age thinking but also a radical
socialist in a field where such are not welcome.
I have a reasonable knowledge of science but never had a course in
physics but was able to teach mathematics/physics in the peace corps to A level students.
My views of history can be found in my seminal text, quite difficult,
World History and the Eonic Effect. I can also provide simpler versions
There I show how world history moves through a series of transitions,
of which modernity is one.
It seems that the ‘eonic effect’ is slowly bootstrapping humanity to
higher and higher forms of civilization, and consciousness. But human interaction appears at all points
and we can’t predict the future and human social/psychological evolution shows advance
and regression: note that after the explosive advances Archaic/classical Greece,
Israel, and India, Occidental civilization went into decline and never recovered until modern times.
My model of history can help here: its model shows the interplay a system and free agency.
The problem is the difficulty of arriving at a coherent psychology, spiritual or otherwise.
But I share most of the jargon of the new agers, i.e. enlightenment, self-awareness, etc…
where that is absent in conventional psychology. A further problem is the ‘free agency’ needed
to realize spiritual goals, even assuming we knew what exactly those are.
We can posit a higher spiritual level, but we have to do that to get there,
mother nature only takes us just so far and the rest is up to us.
So the possibility of deviation and failure is there.
The issue of Bennett is difficult. I am both an enthusiast and a critic and I would
also caution that he can be a man-trap for Gurdjieff spirits searching a meal of
unwary new agers, paranoia, sorry? I am wondering if I should write a critique: the book would be
all the more useful if some parts were challenged/revised. His idea of history following
the cycles of the great year just won’t work. this guy knew Einstein cold
but then introduces astrological cycles. Fortunately, that part is easy to fix.
In fact, my eonic model could repair Bennett, but his followers would be a problem.
Revised link for The Gurdjieff Con
Click to access debriefing_gurdjieffianity_pdf.pdf
As against that always be wary of the terrain you are traversing. Gurdjieff wasn’t kidding when he called himself an occultist.
First, I was never a member or follower of Naranjo but entered the new age movement in the seventies and do know of him, wasn’t he a part of Arica?
I will check out his books and legacy as soon as possible
I briefly interacted ca. 1974 with many groups and briefly with various sufis including the bizarre E.J. Gold, which was not good. The world of such rogue sufis is
a disaster, always be wary, and best stay anonymous. The question of sufism is very difficult: some forms of ‘it’ have a legacy of soul spirituality that should be common knowledge but is concealed, even from most of their followers.
I have read The Dramatic Universe five to ten times and was enthusiastic about it despite many difficulties. I am not confident of his political views but indirectly infer that he was a tight-lipped ‘progressive’ of sorts. The fourth volume indicates this indirectly where he proclaims that modernity is a new epoch in world starting around 1848, an important statement, contradict his own other confusions. You might consider my views on epochs and the endless nonsense on that subject from reactionary antimodernists in the New Age field and its sources.
the New Age movement is filled with reactionaries who Kali Yuga style think the modern world the real Kali Yuga and totally evil.
More generally the Gurdjieff world is not progressive and Ouspensky actually endorsed the code of Manu.
A progressive new age movement with and for socialists would be a breakthrough, but life is not so simple
and reactionaries often use occult attacks on ‘liberals’, so one must be wary here.
Your idea for a radically modern ‘new New Age’ movement is excellent, and if I can help I will.
I have an essay on Bennett and the ideas of Samkhya, dialectic, Hegel, Boehme…I will send the link
I ten to be critical of the enneagram proliferation and have suggested
that Bennett in DU does something far more profound. He wrote way
before the later ‘enneagram personality type’ racket (?) but still because
of loyalty to Gurdjieff wrote on the subject. That makes his later books
confusing. The real issues are the ideas of the triad and 7 term systems.
In any case, you might not like my zany take on Bennett. I am critical
but have often seen his work as a possible contribution where the Gurdjieff
corpus as a whole is a form of dangerous Sufism with pitfalls.
I can and should be more supportive on Bennett because there is something there people can use.
I can help maybe with some of the tougher stuff in DU.
I don’t bother much with Bennett’s other books, more or less,
and stick to DU. Ironically DU is so far beyond most Gurdjieff idiots
that it has never been reduced to cult jargon. But there are students
of the subject with an email list (from which I am barred) and various other things
But the cult worship of that book is another problem. DU needs a critique so
that its amazing core can stand out.
I include an attempt to assess the amazing thing that happened with Bennett: the ancient
Samkhya resurfaced and without realizing Bennett wrote a great book on the subject.
I will get back to you soon
If I am a bit reserved it is because allthe gurus
I encountered since 1974 were fakes or occult menaces, plus the ghosts of dead gurus.
Da Free John is an definite enemy of mine and I fear even his ghost.
Do you consider the ghosts of dead gurus? Best watch your step. Best
brush up on the tibetan book of the dead. The ghosts drink blood, yipes…The whole discussion
of soul/no soul (atman,anatman/anatta)
so I am not aware of any exemplars from the last generation. so what’s the point?
The EJ Gold world is especially malevolent…
The legacy of Aleister Crowley lurks in the background
and his criminal promotion of human sacrifice as a magical option is
truly grotesque. But a whole generation is secretly committing occult murder,
or, more likely, trying trying but ending up the sacrifice themselves.
I was an onlooker to the Rajneesh movement but read hundreds of Rajneesh’s books, tho I wasnt really welcome there
never realized until several years ago
he wasn’t even enlightened. There is a recent Netflix documentary on his movement.
The old gurdjieff con went into a lot of this and I have turned the whole thing into an archive
now on Kindle.If you look to the early blog (which moved from the old Gurdjeiff Con.
So Wilber went through the whole Da Free John hyperfarce and never blinked.
I will always be wary of all that. Wilber is another one of those brainy nerds
kidnapped by a guru to do his bidding. Bennett was another, and Ouspensky especially
the new age left a crisis: if the ‘master of masters’ Rajneesh wasnt’ even
enlightened, what are we talking about.A year or so ago I declared i was
the master of masters, I expected thunderbolgs of occult wrath but was
egged on warmly. I hadn’t realized the master of masters can be anyone, an idiot
We need something basic: a genuine yogi who can restore confidence in
the classic spiritual traditions. No more gangster gurus like Gurjieff,
Gold, Da Free joke, Rajneesh.
How can anyone feel confident in any of all that any more.
But a new generation doesn’t realize that the last generation went
The only thinker I take seriously any more is Bennett, (and Kant)
but he is compromised by the Gurdjieff legacy You can’t do the
former without getting vampire bites from the latter.
I have often thought to do a critical work of Bennett,
but the job is awesome. I studied Einstein’s
General Relativity so I could consider his six dimensional universe model.
Bennett’s time/eternity/hyparxis. I am a little skeptical of his work here,
but it works even when it doesn’t work. It isn’t science but a mental metaphor. It is actually hard to understand
his hyparxis: I found an analogy to explain it, but who knows.
But Bennett is very demanding. as I am sure you know.
I think Bennett thought the enneagram was crap but played the game.
That’s a liability for his credibility.
We can reduce the issue to three term and seven term systems and
forget the enneagram. Bennett without realizing it brought a new version
of Samkhya to the modern world.
The issue of modernity is badly treated by many new age types/gurus. So I am glad
you consider its importance. We have entered a new era and the spiritualities of the past
are under revision or attack. But I fear that a kind of trivialization risks making
the old traditions of meditation into pop therapies. But the ‘modern’ isn’t finished yet.
It is good to steer clear of gurus, save the majority who are nullities.
I would caution to be wary of Bennett in the sense that he is a Gurdjieff disciple
and you will reckon in the end there on that. But
Bennett pointed to an invaluable resource brought to the modern world
and I think we may be able to correct some of his mistakes and limits.
My essay on Samkhya (did you see it?) shows the way via Gurdjeff then Bennett
a series of ancient traditions got reborn for the future, for better or for worse.
The virtual future idea is exciting if speculative and it seems to show how
christianity developed and much else with a mysterious nudging from a ‘virtual’
Bennett if he had stuck to his original thinking would have found modernity
didn’t fit into his cyclical scheme, but he seems to have changed his mind
and the year 1848 is a seminal year of revolutionary modernity and the left.
My eonic model might clarity the two aspects of modernity, the early modern transition
and the new era after that, indeed, ca. 1848….
It has been said by a notable yogi that Gurdjieff’s system was pure Samkhya,
if so, ditto for Bennett. But the subject in Bennett has turned into something new.
I guess you read or tried to read the cascade of laws/triads three, six…twenty four, fortyeight..
It is tour de force, but is it really sound as a system?
If you understand triadic logic let me know, ?!!. You get an extra cracker jack surprise.
I am impressed you are at volume four. The fourth volume is in some ways the best, after
The Hidden directorate must be another version of the secret chiefs (Crowley).
So much disinformation lurks there it is hard to be coherent on the subject
I am fairly sure there are mad sufis in Afghanistan, haha. It is worth seeing the film
the Man Who Would Be King, from Rudyard Kipling. He was very confused and invented an hidden
group of spiritual types in Afghanistan. But he had a sense of something hidden there, strange.
Gurdjieff was a black magician, that means Bennett is related to that, tho perhaps oblivious,
maybe a clueless idiot. The mad sufis of the hills of afghan probably can’t be
a directorate of anything. But the world of sufism is a bit arcane and obscure,
one should be wary not to join anything, or call oneself a sufi:
if you do someone can pull rank and chose you as their victim, the ‘work’, etc…
Be careful. Steering clear of gurus is thus a bon idee…
There are certainly some strange beings hidden away there, plus the Caucasus plus Tibet.
The idea is not as such crackpot.
My essay isn’t really finished, but the connection to Trinitarian theology is the oddest thing.
The whole text of WHEE is fairly tough going, or so I am told.
Gurdjieff who I am critical of did bring some weird stuff to the west.
Perhaps when I finish Decoding History, that will help.
But the core idea is astounding…
4 thoughts on “A developing discussion”
I have read parts of D.U a long time ago.
I respect your views (I’ve read yr Gurdjieff Debriefed) but I am curious as to whether you had any connection with the NYC G. foundation. I haven’t but I did have some connection with the Paris one.
I can understand being fucked up by Gold et al – but I don’t recognise your totally devastating critique of G. in the activities of the Foundation in Paris….
It’s just not the way you portray it. Not that I am a follower. I have had no connection for decades.
And let’s not forget that Bennett even claimed at one point to have been chosen by G as his successor (he even published an essay on the Enneagram I think)
…I don’t believe he was being manipulated – and in fact was largely disowned by the Paris bigwigs.
Thanks for your comment. You can set up a discussion thus.
But we are not talking about Christian Sunday school, rather a unique mafia of Sufistic rogue types.
You can understand being fucked up Gold et al., but not Gurdjieff? Gold is a direct take-off on Gurdjieff, fake or not. People often scratch head at his cruelty, but it was there in Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff hinted he would use disciples for experiments.
What do call someone who creates psychological diseases in unsuspecting dupes?
The Foundation is considered by most to be LOL and indicates nothing but a chicken coop for future victims of the ‘work’. Those people end up enslaved by the guru, Gurdjieff. What a racket. Teachings like that of the enneagram are deliberate paste-ups for suckers. Gurdjieff deliberately spread things he knew were incorrect, now articles of faith in thousands of confused people. The later enneagram of types is total nonsense. These used up disciples end up as human trash, victims of the guru curse. Gurdjieff had a considerable range of consciousness but his exact status is obscure. He never mentioned the path to enlightenment, a strange omission. Does that mean he is beyond the path of Buddhism, or simply ignorant? Perhaps that is not surprising in someone connected with Sufism. The range of consciousness is very great. They wouldn’t bother to talk yoga, except as critics. The devastating critique of Gurdjieff begins with his chief disciple, Ouspensky, who finally broke with him, calling him a criminal. I would not take the work of the Foundation idiots as to that judgment of Ouspensky.
These people hijack disciples as slaves, and Gurdjieff in one book states he will torture his students until they agree to be willing slaves. Even now the first-generation students are reincarnating, as drones of Gurdjieff. They never find out again what happened to them. It is a terrible racket.
In fact, our discussions of Samkhya are some indication. He did have a unique insight into a path of the will, or else, no such path, and simply the issue of the ‘will’. But he didn’t invent that, but wiseacred it with his speculative idiocy only to claim the whole thing as his teaching.
That is of interest, but at the same time, the ‘path of the will’ was hijacked by Aleister Crowley and turned into a mafia scheme of black magic. Perhaps it was like that already in the dark side of Sufism. Was that the real Gurdjieff? The issue of the will was indeed a lost teaching.
least in the West. But Sufis must have known of it. But what is the difference to raja yoga. It is at least on the level. A great tradition of sufi research has been muddled and turned into a terroritarial quagmire of gurdjieff, dead or alive
I would suggest trying to liberate those trapped, thus this blog. But anciently it was said you could have no path until you could see your past lives. To keep people from finding out is a useful way to keep them enslaved. Now the second generation of G’s students are reincarnating, but with no awareness of a previous life, or entrapment. Perhaps they will slip away To be fair, I suspect that behind their pious front, that Buddhists (not all buddhists) are an equally dangerous group. We have discussed here, cf.the archives, the suspicions of Buddhist fascism and the unknown Tibet (cf. by the way Shadow of the Dalai Lama).
Gurdjieff seems to have been aware of what was happening but stayed clear of the fascist ‘new age’ movements. But the zone of Gold produced actual fascists. Where do you think Trump comes from?
Anyway, people need a path. But they can never find one. And the Foundation is a big zero.
So what to do? Turn to Jesus? Jesus I suspect was a sufi gangster like Gurdjieff.
But christianity created a kind of magic circle of protection, up to a point.
But it never allowed development, or real consciousness. Gurdjieff is like the ancient gnostics. Islam with sufism was slightly different, but its real status and history are obscure. For christians, and I am sure moslems, It was just a sheep’s life. Soon mutton, perhaps.
The whole idea of a spiritual path is at risk, what to say of crypto-gnostic dead religions like christianity.
The modern world produced secularism for good reason. The reactionary antimodernism of too many new age figures
is insidious. Ouspensky got programmed to plug the code of manu. insane! Look at the hopeless mess that made of India,
to this day it is a curse. These people are locos.
Thanks for your reply but I guess you realise you did not respond to my question – no problem
Bennett’s work on the enneagram is misleading. His DU dispenses with any of it, except briefly. The whole question of the enneagram is garbage and is a puzzle as to why Gurdjieff would seed such a bogus form of knowledge.
The same for the law of three and law of seven. The worst thing is that yo u can’t critique a ‘master’ and Gurdjieff passes this off
as esoteric knowledge. The issue has nothing to do with the psychology of types which appears in its own confusions.
Gurdjieff presents the enneagram as a talisman of all knowledge. Rubbish (just by the way note that is seven/one aspect generates a rational number, which implies no awareness of the real number system) The enneagram is a rubbish produce of mystical idiocy,