Email exchange: Vedic, sanskrit, dravidian, OIT and AIT, homo sapiens and soul, Egyptian and soul tradition? sufi baraka and thieves of baraka

Re: Sv: 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)
From: Nemonemini
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2020 2:44 pm
We don’t have the antecedents( this refers to the email below): the whole thing is made to look like it derives from the Aryan legacy and the Vedas…
The transcription of some earlier tradition into Sanskrit is behind an iron curtain that slams shut.
But the traditional sources left traces in the later: references to constellations
that can be dated to the Neolithic.
They were faithfully translated into Sanskrit and confused everyone.
There we no Sanskrit in the neolithic.
As I noted one scholar: Danielou, claimed that there was
a Dravidian antecedent translated into now obscure texts:
I will try to find the book.
But the illusion that the Aryans produced Indic
spirituality has been made a dogmatic myth
and it is rubbish. And Indians become belligerent on this
or at least the fundamentalists.
Rajneesh denounced such nonsense.
The last generation has seen the invasion of Hindutva
idiocy which Rajneesh first noticed and denounced.

You can’t research this in English! Need many languages…
The Out of India versus Aryan Invasion Theory debate is ferocious
but the Out of India claims are silly: the Aryans started in India
and wandered out of India to Europe, etc…utter nonsense.
The point is that the tradition may well be earlier, but not
in the Vedic or later Sanskrit. Languages change very fast
and no such thing as Indo-European, let alone Vedic or Sanskrit
existed then. The best theory has the Indo-Europeans sourcing
in central Asia, or thereabouts…The most ancient Indo-European can hardly
predate 3000/4000 BCE and in a form that is very distant from Vedic Sanskrit.
Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Greek are very comparable,
and maybe also Mycenaean Greek. 1200 BCE to the classical period, very roughly
By the time of Buddha, please note, Sanskrit is gone and we get Pali
a vastly changed IE language descended from Vedic, I presume.
That’s five centuries or so and the language is totally different.
The proto-IE from ca. 3000 wouldn’t be recognizable, who knows,
consult some experts here…And of course the same would be true
of Dravidian languages. We may have the same problem with Dravidians,
they may predate the Aryans, but their own time frame is unknown to me.

The invention of writing didn’t reach India or Greece until the late second
millennium, the Minoan/Mycenaean apart. So there were no written sutras until very late.
I suspect that the whole tradition was oral and to this day
a lot of Hinduism, including stuff from the Vedic period
is memorized and oral. Ancient yogas in oral
forms are entirely believable. Look at Patanjali’s yoga sutras,
a few hundred lines, easy to memorize. They are very late
or course.
So the Vedic scriptures are late concoctions. They don’t
prefigure the spiritual tradition at all. But suddenly with the
later ‘Vedic’ material, i.e. the Upanishads, the classic
spiritual tradition resurfaces. The idea that they develop
from the Vedas is a total scam.

You might be interested in Danielou, a controversial
but often insightful scholar.

The Bhagavad Gita is another bizarre fraud. The idea
that it is the Indian Bible is rubbish, although it was pressed
into service for that and many believe it.
Real yogis don’t need a book like the Gita.
Gandhi used the text to preach non-violence
but the text explicitly entails violence
as Khrishna speaks to Arjun telling him to fight.
What was Gandhi thinking.
The real non-violent tradition is Jain (and
it influenced Gandhi)

Bhagavad Gita wasn’t always India’s defining book. Another text was far more popular globally

I would not waste much time on Gurdjieff’s statement that India did philosophy, Egypt Theory, and …etc
What on earth was he thinking? Best to stay clear of it and not try to use it to deduce anything.

The term ‘theoria’ has some kind of legacy, maybe one aspect of G’s statement.

I will hazard a speculation about Egyptian legacies: the spiritual tech of the ”soul” is very ancient
and was known to Gurdjieff and appears in Sufism, in a few, very few, of its groups.
I ran across it and discuss it in my book nemonemini and Ravings of the Masts.

Here’s my speculation: this tradition like so many appears in the Neolithic in pre-sand Egypt,
one of Gurdjieff’s pet ideas and then passes into Dynastic Egypt in some fashion connected
with all the endless paintings of soul/death issues. It then enters early Christianity, but then dies out
but persists in some form in Islamic Sufism.

There is perhaps a possibility that there is an obscure esoteric tradition in modern Egypt, and a figure like Gurdjieff
often got a ticket to the front row and met people others never meet.
But he doesn’t say anything verifiable or practical.
The issue of the soul is very confusing: as Bennett claims the soul appears in early homo sapiens,
a very controversial but to me correct claim.
But then what is the later ‘soul’ question that so obsesses Gurdjieff, and which appears in Sufism?
I can’t answer but it may be the difference between the ordinary soul of ordinary species man
and some esoteric process of the so-called ‘completed man’.

I don’t know, but at least I consider that homo sapiens has a built-in soul, a term rejected by science,
but that would be a mistake. The soul is material but in a very special form. It is really the overall mind complex which
is ‘mind/soul’.
Anyway, the mind/body of man is complex and some part of that survives death (the Tibetan book of
the Dead deals with this, and suggests that the outer mind is stripped away but something passes through
death). It is a typical Tibetan set of memes. Who understands any of it. Then there is spooky physics
and the suspicion, despite howls of protest from official physicists, that the deep mind at the fringe of
space/time actually has a component entanglement beyond space/time.

I will have to relink Ravings of the Masts from dropbox…btw thanks for informing me about dropbox.


You might read Thieves of Baraka in my autobio nemonemini. (I will reissue it soon).There is a difference between soul and
baraka, I guess, an obscure point. It would seem obvious they are different, but ripping off soul cashed out as baraka, soon gone. I once had a kind of dose of baraka in just that way but it was stolen by a strange sufi who appeared
for a few hours and then disappeared, with the baraka. It was near the Gold oufit, but no connection. And the soul factor disappeared with it. That was in downtown Los Angeles. For a sufi of that degree
of knowledge to appear in LA is spooky, and terrifying. They would have been glad to have killed me for finding out their game.
I was never a part of Sufism but at the fringe where I found out a lot of things. Sufis are the biggest bums in spiritual history
and I often flip the bird in their direction. The mountains of Afghanistan.
It is funny, but Kipling in the Man Who Would Be King sensed something about sufis, but his book ended up spinning a fake yarn.
The idea of hidden Sufis in the mountains of the Afghan is about right. To have enemies in the mountains of Afghanistan you have never met
and want to kill you is the end of the path, Frodo meets Gollum. Nuts.
Baraka is like a drug that produces instant enlightenment. If rogue sufis find out you have baraka they
creep up on you and steal it.
Forget Sufis: the path to enlightenment is beyond spiritual energy games. If you become enlightened you
are finished for good. No one can steal anything.

Google, ‘masts’, they are the train wrecks of Sufism. Meher Baba took them under his wing.
As to Kipling, it is eerie that he stumbled onto sufism without knowing it. His book was made
into a movie, check it out. He didn’t understand the issue and turned the sufis into a preposterous
imaginary story.

—–Original Message—–
From: A. C.
To: Nemonemini
Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2020 8:30 am
Subject: Sv: 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)

I have far less knowledge than you on the matter of Hinduism. I’d be interested to know, if you could elaborate, what are the more specific features of the Vedic scriptures that separates them from earlier antecedents in the earliest ‘Hinduism’?

Where exactly does the Bhagavad Gita fit in? I thought that was the main book in Hinduism?

When it comes to Gurdjieff and Egypt it seems one should be able to confirm whether there is anything in the religion resembling a “theory” that involves anything he was talking about, or if there is a possibility of even being initiated anymore (or at the time he was alive). Since Gurdjieff is directly pointing to a source there we could potentially confirm bullshit, but maybe he said it because he knows people can’t make sense of Egyptian religion… I wonder where G actually said he was initiated in Egypt four times, it was not in ISOM…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s