We have discussed the way the forms of ‘santana dharma’ get a boost from the macro effect, but the only example that is clear is that of buddhism. But I suspected an earlier case, perhaps in the Neolithic.
But the point which I didn’t get around to discussing is that in the modern transition none of these ancient lines get that boost. They are simply abandoned by larger history. But, this macro process, never repeats itself and in modern times we thus see all these cases of ‘New Age’ invasion of the West and the attempt to go it solo. In a way more power to these groups. There is no reason why some ‘perennial wisdom’ process can’t try to speak to the modern age.
But the reality remains that buddhism is waning as it is expanding, briefly, in the west, so so. That’s the way it will happen: invasive legacies will try (and succeed probably) in creating a new future. Why on earth not?
If we examine the place of the occult, and Tibet (?), etc,…in Nazism, we can see why history abandoned all these ancient legacies. Floating around on their own, the first fiasco was fascism…
I have made my point.

The real question is consciousness, meditation, and methods of transformation. Sooner or later the process of religion formation will probably return…
We can see Osho’s desperation, and attempt to fix me in his line: his legacy has no ‘boost’ from the macro effect, like buddhism, and all sorts of enemies wish to destroy it.

Meanwhile the classic hindu legacies refuse to reform even the law of caste. They are doomed already. The last generation has tricked these gurus into putting their methods into the modern stream, but already we see the attempt to create public domain versions, as in the mindfulness movement.

But there is a catch to that: the modern ‘secular’ crowd can’t stomach ‘enlightenment’ and wish to eliminate it in favor of a stripped down ‘meditation for benefits’ racket. That fuels the continuation of the ancient traditions, for a while.

The solution is to understand my macro effect and to play a trick on one aspect of modernity: everything is there is the ‘enlightenment’ of the eighteenth century. That the term refers to something else is actually irrelevant. The classic enlightenment and its preoccupation with ‘reason’ will find the path through ‘reason’ to the classic use of reason to examine consciousness, etc…The result will produce a new form of path…
Gurdjieff figured this out and tried to expropriate it before it has even happended, with is long spiels about the degree of ‘reason’, etc…

Schpenhauer almost solved the problem and produced a de facto brand of buddhism in philosophic form. Fait accompli.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s