Reply to email below this one: The issue of the antiquity of Hinduism has long puzzled many, but part of the answer as per below is that the Hinduism we see
is relatively recent.
Re: Sv: Advaita..goofy question of the week: If pace Advaiata the universe is conscious, should it have to mediate to raise its consciousness? (semantic computer crash here)
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 2020 2:35 pm
Note that Bennett’s schemata make ‘will’ in the triad expansion (so reminiscent of Samkhya) the fundamental:
the three, six, twelve, twenty-four, forty-eight, and ninety-six laws.
Although I find it hard to understand his thinking here it is appropriate
to make will the fundamental, and further, the issue has support in
the western philosophy legacy via Schopenhauer as noted before.
And of Christian theology of the Trinitarian legacy.
But it then becomes a question of what Schopenhauer means by will.
It is not psychological will but something closer to the idea of a scientific law
but more subtle and not so reductionist??? You have my essay here?
The eonic effect shows you are right, although it is not a law of destruction and renewal.
Things that emerge in civilization contribute to its future,
but the evidence shows that religions tend to fade away in each new era or epoch.
Your example of Egyptian religion is apt. but note that it takes time. Egyptian religion
took a long time to die out, note Cleopatra in the time of Caesar is surrounded by the
the old priesthood, if you will excuse evidence from the Hollywood movie.
The question of Hinduism is tricky: it does go back many millennia, I suspect
to the Neolithic. But that is misleading. The sutras in Sanskrit are an Axial era
innovation. The Upanishads are an Axial Age product (of course with antecedents0
The Vedic scriptures are ‘bogus traditional sources, with the upanishads something else, and created by the Aryan invaders. They have no
antecedents in the earliest ‘Hinduism’, although the Upanishads point to something more ancient. Patanjali is an Axial era figure, I suspect.
The whole legacy is recast in the wake of the Axial era, so it is all essentially ‘new’.
There is a book (I am trying to recall the author) claiming to show that the Indic
tradition still has the transcriptions of the pre-Aryan spiritual literature
which was probably aural and then put into Sanskrit. It is barely known..
Dravidian proto-Hinduism sounds right, but even that is unlikely to
be the medium for a Neolithic original version. People who discuss
these questions don’t understand linguistics and seem to think Sanskrit
could have existed in the Neolithic, nonsense. Hindu traditionalists are
infuriated by such statements, so they are hardly traditionalist, but
Arjun come lately types.
so we have a serious ‘hey wait a minute’, almost all of what we call
Hinduism has already changed and the older tradition had no Sanskrit.
Note that Jainism must have gone back a long way but in the Axial Age
we see Mahavira (who knew and met Gautama) who is the last of the
Teertankers (or ‘Jain buddhas’. People don’t realize that Jainism essentially
died out after Mahavira although it continued to some degree but in a new
formulation of Mahavira, the last of 24 such ‘buddhas’. Jainism most strangely seems
to yield the future to the Buddhist experiment and itself with twenty four exemplars at a century
apiece goes back two millennia (????). So we see clearly that the Indian legacy while old is basically also new.
So the real question is whether Hinduism will survive much longer in the modern era.
I think we have the solution to the Hindu paradox
Gurdjieff is not trustworthy and you can’t trust what he says. But he does claim that Egypt
had an esoteric line but that that would not be the old Egyptian religion.
Such people might be hidden Sufis of some kind who carry on some older
Be wary ofGurdjieff: you never know when he is lying, and makes statements that servehis interests
and leaves people confused for life.He doesn’t even care. The whole Gurdjieff line via Ouspensky is mostly
yarns or disinformation.
From: A. C.
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2020 8:05 am
Subject: Sv: Advaita..goofy question of the week: If pace Advaiata the universe is conscious, should it have to mediate to raise its consciousness? (semantic computer crash here)
You bring up a good question. As I read your letter I had the thought that if the universe is conscious then it needs a something to be conscious of. Otherwise how can it truly be conscious? It doesn’t make sense then to say that nothing but consciousness exists (though you might say that various levels of consciousness that can be aware of each other can exist).
Another thought occured to me. In general I have so far been expecting all the religions to deteriorate and disappear over time. Most of the ancient “pagan” belief systems or traditions have been lost and one can witness that Christianity is also loosing its influence and status in the West. However, Hinduism poses a defiant contrast to this in that it has not been lost or deteriorated much, it has only grown and become more complex/diverse over time and survived the “Axial Age” transformation into a new religion like Buddhism, while Egyptian religion did not survive the same transformation into Judaism.
I wonder what made it survive the “law of destruction and renewal”? Perhaps there is something either fundamentally true and “eternal” about the basis of Hinduism, or there is something about it that produces a kind of stagnation and passivity where it makes no sense for such a culture to try to strive for new things or evolve?
But there are still priests of the old Egyptian religion left are there not? The website http://www.gurdjiefflegacy.org/60gine/ claims here that: “Gurdjieff said he had been four times through the Initiate Mysteries of Egypt.” Now I don’t know how he could have been initiated without someone initiating him…? I wonder if there is an egyptian equivalent to the law of three? He said India only had “philosophy” while the theory was in Egypt.