2.2 Blavatskian Times
Last modified 06/28/2008
|
One of the key issues for understanding Gurdjieff is to see the backdrop
of his times, and the legacy of Blavatsky, a figure whom Gurdjieff resembles, on
the surface. Indeed, in both cases we see a slightly off-color or controversial
figure claiming access to an esoteric circle promoting a form of spirituality
for a 'New Age'. There is an obvious strain of competition between the two,
given Blavatsky's stance toward Christianity and the response of Gurdjieff with
his claims for an 'esoteric Christianity'. We can see that monothesitic groups
and traditions are rising in response to the clear Indic (Hindu/Buddhist)
emphasis of Blavatsky's works. In both cases the element of deception, possible
chicanery, and the promotion of the esoteric, colors the public presentation. In
both cases we find more disinformation, guesswork, or outright deception than
anything else, and it is finally difficult in both cases to do anything more
than passively embrace the svengali of 'hidden masters' as an exoteric naif. The
idea of 'esoteric Christianity' is a no-brainer. If the hidden esoteric
Christians are this dishonest, you are out of luck and would do well to find
another religion. Thieves in the night?
This element of competition goes a long way toward explaining the earlier side of the Gurdjieff phenomenon, and whatever nonpublic sources lie behind it. The tactics in both cases threaten in the end to discredit both great streams of spirituality, in their traditionalist attacks on modernity disguised in the promulgation of a 'postmodern' New Age. In both cases, interested students are abducted into a labyrinth from which there is no escape on its own terms, short of simply abandoning the whole quest for something public, open, and on the level. People peddling the 'esoteric' seems to be looking for an excuse to lie to you. Caveat emptor. And the wild card of 'esoteric fascism' emerging so notably in this generation suggests that something very 'occult' indeed is a foot, in which the two figures are obscure pawns.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||