New World Order, New Age Religion

Executive Summary: Our thesis is the New World Order needs a “new age” religion to back it up. “Old age” religions obligate their followers to a moral code ill-suited to “new age” progressivist designs and purposes. So people worldwide need to be “re-trained” in the spirituality department. Perhaps a clue as to what sort of training this would be can be found at the United Nations itself. The U.N. has chartered two NGOs — World Goodwill and Lucis Trust — which serve as advisors to various U.N. Departments, including the important Public Information Office. These NGOs are devoted to New Age religious principles, and teach such doctrines as the Hidden Masters of the Hierarchy and the Reappearance of Lord Maitreya, the “true” Christ. Generally, New Age Religion purports to be a “blend” of Buddhism and Christianity. We find, however, that the two are not “blendable.” To make our case, we resorted to G. I. Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson. In his fascinating myth, we find Gurdjieff attempting to “blend” them. It seems he feels this can be done because both purportedly are founded in the teachings of a single, very ancient Wisdom School — which was founded on antideluvian Atlantis. Thus Gurdjieff’s myth is about much more than just this Wisdom School. Beelzebub’s Tales is also a myth about the entire cosmic evolution of the planet Earth. In the process, we see him either defacing Christian symbols such as, e.g., Original Sin, The Revolt of the Angels, Eden; or outright denying them. For example of the latter, he calls the idea of “objective” Good and Evil as “the most maleficent lie” ever told. We also find him embroidering Buddhism with a hierarchy of cosmic “spiritual personalities” that are not mentioned in Buddha’s direct teachings. We then speculate about the possible teachings of the putative Ancient Wisdom School, and then compare and contrast the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism, showing why they are “unblendable.” In conclusion, we proffer the idea that New Age Religion teaches its pupils obsessive self-preoccupation and habits suited to a slave society. It teaches that there is no “objective” Good and Evil. It teaches submission to the teachers. Above all, it teaches that all human thinking, feelings, beliefs, and views; morality and philosophies and politics rooted in centuries of human cultural experience and history are utterly false. Thus they must be swept away so that “Objective Science” — supposedly the basis of New World Order governance — may finally come into its own.

Social order and religious belief have gone hand-in-hand all the way back to the dawn of human history. The record shows that a social order — a society — declines and finally fails when its traditional religious symbols lose their resonance in the hearts and minds of the members of the society. When this happens, the society eventually falls apart. Then inevitably an enterprising tyrant comes along to re-engineer it in divers ways, thus to impose a “new order” on it — usually to his enormous personal benefit, at great expense to the people he would rule.

Yet, even when religious symbols have been drained of their original light and life under the pressure of the so-called scientific revolution, they can still remain as “husks” of their former selves in human personal and social memory. Although detached from living experience, still they can be usefully exploited by would-be social engineers for their “ideational content.”

Nowadays many people have noticed the planet seems to be falling into wide-scale disorder (again), via war, terrorism, environmental irresponsibility, financial malfeasance, etc. Since this disorder is not a local or regional phenomenon but extends to the entire planet, therefore, the reasoning goes, its solution must be global, too. To meet this need the structure of a universal government based on scientific expertise must be created.

In light of the connection between social order and religious belief, a global New World Order would require a correspondingly global World Religion. And it turns out there is a “religion” or “spiritual tradition” that is extraordinarily well-suited to fostering globalist goals: “New Age” Religion.

To many people nowadays, it seems that religion is all about correct knowledge. That is, it is about what one knows, and not about how one lives. Thus man, seemingly so confused at precisely this point, should be easy to reprogram with a “new religion” to fill the void of the evacuated Spirit, one better aligned with the requirements and values of the putative emerging New World Order.

An ersatz blend of Buddhism and Christianity, New Age Religion claims to globally unite all the peoples of the world — heretofore divided along religious lines — under a new spirit of “brotherhood” and “sharing.”

Let us suppose the United Nations is the model for implementing the New World Order. One then wonders whether the U.N. has any particular preference of religious or spiritual tradition suitable as an intellectual and moral support for the emerging global order it is spearheading. As it turns out, the U.N. does.

Under the U.N. organizational umbrella are two fully-accredited non-governmental organizations whose stated purpose is to advance “New Age spirituality.” The two NGOs are closely related. The first, World Goodwill, “a program of Lucis Trust,” is an official advisor to the U.N.’s Department of Public Information. It also maintains “informal relations with certain of the Specialised Agencies and with a wide range of national and international non-governmental organizations.”

The other NGO is World Goodwill’s parent, Lucis Trust itself. Founded by Alice Bailey (1880–1949), Lucis Trust is a famous promoter of Arcane School spiritualism. Lucis Trust is also Alice Bailey’s publisher: Her books bear such titles as, e.g., Initiation, Human and Solar; The Reappearance of the Christ; The Rays and the Initiations; Esoteric Psychology; A Treatise on White Magic; A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. They continue to sell well, decade after decade.

Lucis Trust’s stated mission is to “promote the education of the human mind towards recognition and practice of the spiritual principles and values upon which a stable and interdependent world society may be based.” [Emphasis added.] Accordingly, it is a respected advisor to the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Alice Bailey was the original promoter of the doctrines of the Hidden Masters of the Hierarchy and the Reappearance of Maitreya, the “true” Christ. Her student Benjamin Creme (1922 – ) has until very recently (he’s now 89) tirelessly worked to promote these ideas, especially in Western (traditionally Christian) countries.

As a former Bailey student personally acquainted with Benjamin Creme, the present writer would describe this New Age programme as a chimera consisting of a Buddhist chassis, richly festooned with Christian symbolism and allusions. Evidently this is a bid to integrate the philosophical and religious traditions of East and West into a “universal religion.”

Yet such “blending” of Buddhism and Christianity arguably does not — and cannot — work. The Buddhist approach to Truth, as the philosopher Joseph Needleman has pointed out, is “scientific and psychological,” while the Christian approach is based on reason and feeling. Can one blend oil and water?

Meet Gurdjieff — and His Alter Ego, “Beelzebub”

Enter G. I. Gurdjieff (1866(?) – 1949), and his “spiritual autobiography,” Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.

Like Bailey and Creme, Gurdjieff is a seminal source of New Age religious ideas. But he is far “craftier” and more cunning (and conning) than they. While Bailey and Creme devote themselves to writing textbooks on human spiritual improvement, Gurdjieff is a story-teller. He purports to “blend the oil and the water” by his claim that Buddhism and Christianity (via classical Western philosophy) have a common, very ancient root located in a Wisdom School that once flourished on the “lost continent” of Atlantis. Thus Beelzebub’s Tales is a fascinating exercise in myth construction.

However, just as with Bailey and Creme, in Gurdjieff the Buddhist “chassis” seems far removed from the original teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. There is nothing in Buddha’s direct teaching that indicates the existence of a proliferation of exalted spiritual beings — “powers and principalities” — who expertly keep “all the cosmic trains running on time.” Buddha said nothing about a hierarchy of great “Spiritual Personalities” responsible for “World-creation and World-maintenance” — though certainly Bailey, Creme, and Gurdjieff do. Nor does Buddha ever speak of a Creator. Moreoever what Gurdjieff does with Christian symbols (and classical philosophical insights) is nothing short of turning them inside-out, as we shall see.

The Wisdom School

Let us grant that once-upon-a-time there was such a thing as an Ancient Wisdom school, whether on Atlantis or somewhere else. In the West, its influence would likely have first surfaced in the Pythagorean School, which marks the transition from oral to written teaching methods. Pythagoras (~600 B.C.) himself had sources — according to legend, he studied 20 years with the Egyptian priests, and also with the Chaldean priests (Babylon).

Yet just as a physicist cannot “see” the beginning of the physical universe, neither can a philosopher “see” the beginning of human thought and religious experience — which are universals.

Then again, Pythagoras was the teacher of Socrates, who was the teacher of Plato; who in turn was the teacher of Aristotle, the founder of “natural philosophy,” or of what we today call: science. Moreover, key elements of this tradition were later absorbed into Christian theology, via the great Doctors of the Church, notably Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm.

Let us turn now to Gurdjieff’s myth. We open Book 1 of Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson to find Beelzebub rocketing around the Universe in a space ship, grandson Hassein at his side. Hassein is avid to hear the wisdom his grandfather has to impart about cosmic Reality at all scales.

Gurdjieff’s myth is no less than the cosmic history of the Planet Earth, understood as a constituent part of the One Cosmos, out of which issues the order of the physical Universe. The maintenance of this Universe is in the care of certain spiritual persons of exalted rank, who are responsible for ensuring that the Cosmic Plan goes forward — according to Plan.

These beings go by the titles of Archangel, Angel, Saint, etc. Their main job is to monitor and regulate “energy exchanges” between the bodies of the solar system. They must do this in a way that sustains not only the solar system and the flourishing of its various planets (many of which are inhabited by life forms), but they must do this in a way that does not violate cosmic principles (laws). Thus, these “Archangels,” etc., are experts in the field of “cosmic energy distribution and balancing.” They are the “World-creators–World-maintainers.” At bottom, they are “spiritual scientists” (forgive the oxymoron).

But it turns out they are not all-knowing, and according to Beelezebub’s tale, they can make mistakes of disastrous consequences for man.

Although it is impossible to do justice to a work of over 1,000 pages in a short article, we can sketch out some of the main ideas.

The First Disaster

Gurdjieff’s tale commences with the first cosmic disaster ever to befall planet Earth, which he uses as the background for a concept of Original Sin strikingly different from the Judeo-Christian one.

This first disaster was the ancient comet strike on Earth that carved the Moon (in this tale actually two moons) out of the body of the Earth. It was a disaster for the very reason that the above-mentioned “saints” did not see it coming.

According to the tale, mankind first appeared on Earth shortly after this catastrophe took place. In a nutshell, mankind had to be introduced on Earth when the solar system was suddenly, unexpectedly complicated by the unforeseen appearance of two new planets, Moon and Anulios. Then mankind had to be introduced because, as Beelzebub tells us, a certain “human suffering” was required in order to smooth out the disturbances to the cosmic energy balance occasioned by the effects of the comet strike on Earth.

The Moon as a “massive body” physically torn out of the Earth, according to this myth, gained “planetary status” thereby. The unexpected separation of Moon from Earth required the “saints” to recalculate how to maintain the overall balance of energies as between the “source” (Earth) and its separated part, the Moon (actually two moons). What was required was a certain “shifting and rebalancing of energies” from precisely mankind to the Moon in order to rebalance the energy distribution of the solar system caused by this unexpected situation, thus to maintain the Cosmic Order, the Plan.

As for the “other moon,” Anulios, we are told only this: Being of exceedingly small size and inhabiting a remote sector of space, it has not yet been detected by man. Gurdjieff leaves unclear what Anulios’ “energy demands” on the human race might be.

The upshot is: The “saintly bright boys” — the spiritual scientists — who “didn’t see this situation coming,” figured they had a real problem here:

“…[I]t might happen that having understood the reason for their arising, namely, that by their existence they should maintain the detached fragments of their planet, and being convinced of this their slavery to circumstances utterly foreign to them, they would be unwilling to continue their existence and would on principle destroy themselves.”

Thus the question: What did “the saintly ‘bright boys’ who didn’t see this situation coming” do to remedy this situation? After all, they hardly wanted man to commit suicide — for Moon needed their “being-sacrifices” in order to develop its own “atmosphere.”

The answer: They decided to “tamper” with man as he then existed by installing a brand-new organ, called the Kundabuffer, into his bodily organization. This Kundabuffer is perhaps best understood as a program designed to divert human spiritual energies into the service of personal “pleasure” and “enjoyment.” Keep ’em busy with this stuff, and they won’t so much mind they are slaves…. Or so the thinking went at the time among these “great spiritual personalities” who evidently have zero foresight, and so are forever playing a game of “catch-up ball” just like the rest of us “three-brained beings” (that is, human beings, referred to often in this work as the “scum” breeding on/inhabiting the “ill-fated planet” Earth).

So the darned thing — the Kundabuffer — kicked in; and the next thing we find out is that “the saintly ‘bright boys’ who didn’t see this situation coming” came to regret their decision to install the Kundabuffer. For one thing, it seemed to lead to the propensity of human beings to destroy one another. So, regretting their unfortunate decision, they “removed” the Kundabuffer from the human bodily organization….

But too late! It had already left its mark on human nature; and moreover, this mark was relentlessly, necessarily heritable unto the generations. (Gurdjieff seems more Lamarckian than Darwinian in his idea of biological evolution.)

The point is, unlike the Judeo-Christian tradition’s view of the Fall of Man” — the Original Sin, Adam’s fatal choice, which was his alone to make, which is likewise relentlessly heritable unto the generations — Beelzebub’s account holds man himself entirely blameless for his suffering in the world. It was just a huge cosmic screw-up traceable to a certain overly-anxious Archangel, a vast cosmic mistake.

But the upshot is: Mankind has to pay for the consequences of this “mistake” nonetheless, “unto the generations.” Man’s fate is to offer his personal suffering “in service to the Moon.” This is an irremovable condition, heritable unto the generations.

In other words, mankind was created for the sole purpose of discharging a “cosmic debt.” He lives and suffers and dies in service to this purpose. And he binds his descendants to this irremovable condition of slavery simply by “breeding.”

The Second Disaster

The second great cosmic disaster to befall the Earth was the destruction of “the continent Atlantis” by means of a massive flood. The significance of this event is as follows:

According to Beelzebub, there had arisen on Atlantis a very great school of human psychology or “Ancient Wisdom” that possibly conceived of man as a microcosm of the Cosmos, a complete recapitulation of it on a vastly smaller scale. This school may have maintained that, in order for man to understand the Being of the Cosmos of which he was a living part, he first needed to understand the order of his own being. In order for him to do that, he needed to realize that the order of the human mind did not consist solely of its “rational function,” but also incorporates feeling and instinctive functions that “mirror” the order of the encompassing Cosmos of which he is a part and participant. In shorthand: “As above, so below.”

According to Beelzebub, the humans of this great Atlantean school were of such superlative mental acuity that they perceived, from their own careful measurements of “the local energies,” that some really bad thing was about to befall the Earth. And so they deployed their people out of Atlantis to all quarters of the then-known world to see whether anybody could find out anything with respect to the impending doom, so as to try to prevent it.

Thus initiates of the Atlantean School disbursed to such places as Central Asia, Egypt, and India.

When Atlantis was destroyed, the school there would have been utterly destroyed also — had it not been for this antediluvian diaspora of its initiates to other parts of the world.

In short, this school and its ideas lived on, though in increasingly degraded form over time.

It later emerges in supposed pristine condition under Gurdjieff’s symbol, Ashiata Shiemash, a holy teacher and great spiritual being sent “from Above” to revivify the ancient ideas so to guide mankind in the acquisition of “Objective Science.”

Ashiata Shiemash tells us that Objective Science begins in human “regeneration.” Human regeneration, or spiritual evolution, begins with inculcating the sense of Remorse, which leads to Conscience. This then proceeds to Gratitude, which furthermore leads, in a “properly-formed” human consciousness, to a more-or-less permanent sense of selfless Duty. His teaching method is designed to bring forth such fruits in his human subjects.

Compare this idea with the Christian teaching, “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The corresponding Shiemash formulation would go: “Love thy neighbor more than thyself.” Or even: “Love anything that breathes” more than oneself.

This regeneration/reformation of man is done by invoking the proper “being-obligolnian-strivings” in human beings. There are five such strivings:

“The first striving: to have in their ordinary being-existence everything satisfying and really necessary for their planetary body.

“The second striving: to have a constant and unflagging instinctive need for self-perfection in the sense of being.

“The third: the conscious striving to know ever more and more concerning the laws of World-creation and World-maintenance.

“The fourth: the striving from the beginning of their existence to pay for their arising and their individuality as quickly as possible, in order afterwards to be free to lighten as much as possible the Sorrow of our COMMON FATHER.

“And the fifth: the striving always to assist the most rapid perfecting of other beings, both those similar to oneself and those of other forms, up to the degree of the sacred “Martfotai” that is up to the degree of self-individuality.”

The point is, Beelzebub seems to be saying that a New Eden can be raised on these five “strivings.” People grasping these principles — new initiates — would begin to speak of them in public, and model them in their daily lives, whereupon “the crowd” would see that these were, in fact, really fine principles for ordering human existence. So they would emulate these models.

The problem is this “attractive” idea has never before played out successfully in actual reality, although this fact hardly reflects a lack of trying. The New Eden requires “chiefs,” “leaders,” to organize such an enterprise and carry it out — something like the U.N. — and a willing, cooperative, even supine body of followers to “make it happen”:

“At that period the counsel and guidance and in general every word of these chiefs, became law for all the three-brained beings there [i.e., human beings], and were fulfilled by them with devotion and joy.”

One way to read this: The human spirit’s sublime fulfillment consists in the rejection of one’s “ego” and free will, so to hitch one’s individuality up to the great star of expert opinion of spiritual activists, leading to the functioning of an expertly-guided “group mind.”

Near the end of Book 1, Gurdjieff says that if the methods of Ashiata Shiemash were to fail, he hopes the “bright boys” running the cosmic show would implant a new organ in mankind, similar to the Kundabuffer. But this time, the new organ would not be devoted to the purpose of motivating experiences of pleasure and enjoyment. It would be devoted to inculcating a sense of self-sacrifice and self-denial, in the interest of a common human “welfare” that is being defined and directed by otherworldly spiritual guides. Gurdjieff uses the word “welfare.” I take it he prefers that word to the classical philosophical word, the Good.

It is reasonable to conclude that the removed Kundabuffer and the proposed new Kundabuffer are more like computer programs than they are like any human organ we know of. But I wonder: Are human beings really “programmable” in this way?

But the problem remains, as Beelzebub himself acknowledges: The human being will do his level best to destroy the “fruits of the Very Saintly Labors of Ashiata Shiemash” any time he’s given a chance.

In the humble opinion of the present writer, this is precisely because the God-fearing individual knows as if by instinct, as it were, that this so-called “holy person” Ashiata Shiemash wants to strip him of his own holy individuality and the liberty invested in him by God, in order to make him amenable to the social reengineering that the experts of Objective Science — seers of a destroyed Atlantis — have in mind.

The Third Disaster

The third disaster to befall the “ill-fated planet” was the rising of “cosmic winds” affecting the planet, such that the very mountains were ground down, disintegrated into particles, thence distributed and deposited as sand. This “sandification” process resulted in, e.g., the Sahara and Gobi deserts. The “disaster,” from Beelzebub’s point of view, was that these sands buried virtually all extant writings of the Atlantean Wisdom School. (But not to worry. He finds them later, and “reassembles” them in his “tale to his grandson.”)

Not much to add here regarding the Third Disaster, for Beelzebub does not further elaborate. But he does suggest that yet other, forthcoming cosmic catastrophes will befall the “ill-fated planet” in due course.

The Angelic Rebellion

Beelzebub himself is a spiritual person of exalted rank — one of those “saintly ‘bright boys’ who didn’t see this situation coming” (though probably of more “lawyerly” than “hands-on” predisposition). As he tells it, once-upon-a-time he committed a certain “youthful indiscretion,” for which reason he and certain of his friends were exiled from some undefined celestial realm — to the planet Mars. Beelzebub has a great big telescope there to investigate the doings on all the planets of the Solar System (many inhabited by living beings), and especially “that ill-fated planet,” Earth. And he has perfect means to “descend” to Earth anytime he wishes to visit: He has a space ship on constant stand-by for this purpose. He has made this journey six times in the history of Earth, typically for some “good purpose,” such as ending the practice of animal sacrifice, or ending the caste system in India.

Beelzebub is not Lucifer. Lucifer is mentioned infrequently, inconsequently. (The name Satan never appears.) When he is mentioned, Beelzebub always refers to him as “our Arch Cunning”…. Beyond that, Gurdjieff leaves Lucifer’s cosmic role seemingly undefined.

Thus Gurdjieff’s version of the cosmic revolt of Lucifer and one-third of the angels. There is no explanation of what Beelzebub’s “youthful indiscretion” was; but it seems he was a ranking member of the party of the fallen angels all the same. He is “rehabilitated” later, in the course of Gurdjieff’s myth.

The Tower of Babel

In Beelzebub’s tale, the Tower of Babel was constructed on the basis of a single question: Does man have a soul? This question has two main camps: the “dualists” and the “atheists”:

“In the dualist or idealist teaching, it was said that within the coarse body of the being-man, there is a fine and invisible body, which is just the soul.

“This ‘fine body’ of man is immortal, that is to say, it is never destroyed….

“In [the atheist] teaching…it was stated that there is no God in the world, and moreover no soul in man, and hence that all those talks and discussions about the soul are nothing more than the deliriums of sick visionaries.

“It was further maintained that there exists in the World only one special law of mechanics, according to which everything that exists passes from one form into another; that is to say, the results which arise from certain preceding causes are gradually transformed and become causes for subsequent results.

“Man also is therefore only a consequence of some preceding cause and in his turn must, as a result, be a cause of certain consequences.

“Further, it was said that even what are called ‘supernatural phenomena’ really perceptible to most people, are all nothing but these same results ensuing from the mentioned special law of mechanics.”

Sound familiar? Here we see the age-old dispute regarding free will vs. determinism put into sharp relief. And also the popular scientific claim that the entire universe reduces to matter in its motions.

Addressing this situation, Gurdjieff puts this speech into the mouth of his character, Hamolinadir, a middling initiate of the Atlantean wisdom school:

There is now proceeding among us in the city of Babylon the general public “building-of-a-tower” by means of which to ascend to “Heaven” and there to see with our own eyes what goes on there.

This tower is being built of bricks which outwardly all look alike, but which are made of quite different materials.

Among these bricks are bricks of iron and wood and also of “dough” and even of “eider down.”

Well then, at the present time, a stupendously enormous tower is being built of such bricks right in the center of Babylon, and every more or less conscious person must bear in mind that sooner or later this tower will certainly fall and crush not only all the people of Babylon, but also everything else that is there.

As I personally still wish to live and have no desire to be crushed by this Babylonian tower, I shall therefore now immediately go away from here, and all of you, do as you please.

Unfortunately, Gurdjieff does not propose a way of reconciling the underlying dispute — dualist vs. atheist — in the entire tale of Beelzebub’s conversations with his grandson. Perhaps he knows that, as between “dualists” and “atheists,” there is no reconciliation on questions of Truth? That is to say, there is no common ground between them on which rational discourse could make a stand? Thus all one gets from such attempts is: the construction of a Tower of Babel that will wind up crushing us all?

Gurdjieff doesn’t declare himself on this question. But I note the myth he constructs in Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson pays obeisance to the atheists’ “special law of mechanics.”

Good and Evil

In Book 3, Beelzebub says mankind’s understanding of “angels” and “demons” is horrifically warped, because human beings have bought into the most maleficent lie ever told: That there is such a thing as objective Good and Evil.

Beelzebub holds that what we call “good” and “evil” are merely internal processes in man. “Good” is bad, because it leads man down false paths of egoism; “Evil” is good because it is a symbol for destructive processes in Nature which are necessary to Being itself.

[Man has] already based all questions without exception, questions concerning ordinary being-existence as well as questions about self-perfecting and also about various “philosophies” and every kind of “science” existing there, and of course also about their innumerable “religious teachings” and even their notorious what are called “morality,” “politics,” “laws,” “morals, and so on, exclusively on that fantastic but…very maleficent idea. [Emphasis added.]

Gurdjieff has a plan for eradicating this “most maleficent lie” from human consciousness. In the very last chapter of Book 3, he tells us what it is:

“To destroy, mercilessly, without any compromises whatsoever, in the mentation [thought] and feelings of the reader, the beliefs and views, by centuries rooted in him [by heredity and culture], about everything existing in the world.”

In short Gurdjieff takes the wrecking-ball approach to all existing human cultures, clearing and leveling the ground so an entirely new system can be erected on the razed site.

As Anthony Daniels wryly noted in National Review (“The Brute and the Terrorist,” March 7, 2011), nowadays a man best shows his “independence of mind” and “generosity of spirit” by rejecting everything he has inherited from his historical and cultural past.

One imagines that Gurdjieff approves this attitude. Evidently Gurdjieff wishes to reduce his pupil to the status of tabula raza, a blank slate on which he can write anything at all. And how better to do that than to detach from human consciousness mankind’s hard-won culture and history? With this support gone, how is man to locate himself in Reality?

The Fundamental “Unblendability” of Buddhism and Christianity

The two spiritual/philosophical systems — East (Buddhism) and West (Christianity/classical philosophy) — are similar in their basic understanding of the structure of human psyche as a “three-bodied system” consisting of consciousness (rational intellect), unconsciousness (feeling), and organic instinct. They also agree the soul, psyche, is eternal. Perhaps this basic agreement owes to a far older common tradition, a school of Ancient Wisdom, whether or not it was located in “Atlantis.”

But beyond this point of agreement, the two traditions seemingly diverge. The bifurcation occurs at the question of how the two traditions deal with the proper alignment and balance of the “three-bodied system,” the human psyche.

Socrates and Plato regard this problem as solvable by giving each of the three “bodies” or “centers” its due, and then to bring them into proper “alignment.” The method used to accomplish this is relentless self-interrogation — “Know Thyself” — involving a process called anamnesis, or “recollection,” remembering.

Buddha suggests that the object of the game is to bring the “centers” of feeling and instinct under the complete control of the rational intellect. That is, Buddhism does not regard feeling or instinct as natural goods, but as something that must be overcome. Feeling and instinct must be dominated by the rational component of psyche in order for human beings to be liberated from the cycle of rebirth — samsara — and its “suffering.” And when one achieves such liberation, one attains the blessed condition of Nirvana — final release from all the pains of earthly, bodily existence.

In contrast, Socrates/Plato (and Christian theology in certain respects) regard psyche (soul, inclusive of mind) as a complete divine specification of a unique human person. Soul materializes the body, incarnates in it. Soul needs to be actively tended to by its recipient, corrected, and perfected, in order for the human being to attain the proper balance of consciousness enabling him to realize whatever “divinity” he has latently within him, according to the divine measure. And then to express this latent divinity as far as possible within his own practical existence, with an eye on his post-existence: Dike — divine Justice — is never far below the surface in Plato. Plato’s message for the ages is that all human beings are subject to divine Judgment in all matters involving divine Justice. Thus the idea of personal responsibility and accountability runs through Socrates/Plato. (Beelzebub calls Socrates “a crank.”)

In contrast it seems for Buddha, psyche is more like a “little seed” that one is born with. It is not a “full specification of the human person,” but a locus of potentiality that man must develop by his own efforts, according to his own reason (the imperfections of which will hopefully be corrected and cured in the virtually endless process of reincarnation). And its destiny is to realize itself as a “worthy particle” of the divine Prana — the divine Cosmic Essence — which realization represents the eternal merger and identification of the self-perfected personal self with the divine Cosmic Self. At which point, one can say of oneself: I AM (God).

Strange to say it, but Buddhism seems to tell us that the only personal obligation that one has is: to release oneself from personal “suffering.” The idea of Justice — as something involving the entire human community — doesn’t seem to be exactly topical in this system of ideas.

In Conclusion

Whatever one thinks about these problems, in Beelzebub’s Tales Gurdjieff is mining a common vein of ancient thought, and seemingly very knowledgeably and skillfully — that is, “craftily.”

But as he himself tells us, he’s a “wiseaker.” It seems Gurdjieff is not so much a charlatan as he is a chameleon, even a “shape-shifter.” Furthermore, Gurdjieff may have been a practitioner of “coyote Wisdom.”

In American Indian lore the coyote symbolizes the Trickster. He excels by cunning (magic) at depicting and conveying false pictures of Reality to human beings, at the behest of a “Shaman.” And then they really get into trouble! (The humans, that is.)

Gurdjieff tells us that the universe is filled with a myriad of life-bearing planets. Beelzebub deplores the “fact” that the “ill-fated planet,” Earth, is the only planet that isn’t ordered under a “single King” — a global government. Clearly he feels that this situation needs to be fixed.

In common with Lucis Trust, Gurdjieff recognizes that, in order for a world government to succeed, its would-be subjects must first be educated “towards recognition and practice of the spiritual principles and values upon which a stable and interdependent world society may be based.” His teaching methods — and those of Bailey and Creme — work toward that end. In the end, the New Age Religion championed by the U.N. seems intended as the universal spiritual justification for ever-expansive global secular power. No wonder the U.N. accords them respect.

Finally, what does this teaching teach? As a practical matter, it teaches obsessive self-preoccupation and habits suited to a slave society. It teaches that there is no “objective” Good and Evil. It teaches submission to the teachers. Above all, it teaches that all human thinking, feelings, beliefs, and views; morality and philosophies and politics rooted in centuries of human cultural experience and history are utterly false. Thus they must be swept away so that “Objective Science” — supposedly the basis of New World Order governance — may finally come into its own.

Untethered from the human past, including all former religious traditions, human beings are left vulnerable to domination by any crazy ideology that comes down the pike that can project effective political force.

Gurdjieff deploys amazing knowledge and skill — craft — to sell us this dubious proposition, which seems to falsify human nature at every turn.

Yet for all his craftiness, one has little sense of the man’s character, of his moral core. Then again, the idea of “moral core” cannot be found anywhere in Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.

And so in reading him, one is advised to recall a bit of practical wisdom, or common sense: The most successful liar is the man who can tell the truth “skillfully.”

...I associated the exercising of faith in being reborn, with the interesting phenomenon in Physics which asserts the observer is so intimately involved in any phenomenon under study that the mere observation and choices made by the scientists effect which outcome will be found. If indeed this is a fundamental characteristic of the universe then we may associate that phenomenon to the function of being born again from above ... it is as if God is still creating aspects of His universe and the special behavior of choosing consciously to exercise faith in His Promises woven in His Grace through Christ Jesus toward us that a next level of creation involving the intelligences in the universe is manifesting.

I believe God's Creation was not a "one-shot" deal, but permeates every instant of space and time, from Alpha to Omega.

Quantum theory holds it is impossible to see both the position and momentum of a particle at one and the same time. So the observer has to choose, in any experimental set-up, which aspect of the particle (i.e., position or momentum) he wishes to view. If he chooses to see "position," he cannot see "momentum," and vice versa; but this does not mean that momentum goes away. Though not observed, it is still "there".... Plus QT also says that any experimental set-up — the act of observation itself — will "disturb" the particle regardless of which aspect we wish to view it under; so our experimental results will reflect this disturbance, introducing "uncertainty" in our results that can only be resolved for practical purposes by statistical methods that, virtually by definition, do not "map" Reality 100%.

Thus we humans really do see "as if through a glass, darkly."

Of course, these observations pertain to the quantum world, or what has been called the microworld, of which we have no direct consciousness. Notwithstanding, it is the "physical" or "material" basis of everything that exists in the Universe, including ourselves.

But we humans more or less consciously live in — exist in, experience, and think about — what has been called the mesoworld. In short, born-again experiences can happen only in this mesoworld. [Note: the "mesoworld" is roughly described by Newtonian physics; the "macroworld" would roughly be the world described by Einsteinian physics.]

The conscious recognition of "being born again from above" only occurs in the mesoworld of God's Creation. It would certainly affect what the "observer" chooses to see. The analogy to QT would be: To "see God" and keep faith with Him eclipses or suspends for a time its opposite (I won't call it its "complementary," for Satan and God are ineluctibly not on equal footing as, say, a particle's position and momentum are.)

A person who sees God and keeps faith with Him in love and action becomes an instrument in God's creative hands. Some passages from St. Francis Assisi's wondrous prayer:

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy Peace:
Where there is Hatred, let me sow Love;
Where there is Injury, Pardon;
Where there is Doubt, Faith;
Where there is Despair, Hope;
Where there is Sadness, Joy;
Where there is Darkness, Light....

People who live in such Spirit bring great blessings to mankind and the world. God is working through such.

Just some thoughts FWTW....

Thank you, dear MHGinTN, brother in Christ, for your marvelous insights!

Murder, theft, lying, etc, as found in all societies, too.

Yup, good and evil is to be found in all societies.

Besides, that didn't answer the question, unless you are saying that morality is based on consensus.

It most certainly is.

So, just WHO gets to decide then, what moral system people use and which one is better than another? On what basis do you decide what is *good* or not?

The community, of course. History, tradition, beliefs, etc.

Well, there's a crock. Yeah, an infant knows what feels good and what doesn't.

He does. And he let you know.

and let them use that as the basis of morality and in two years you have an out of control little tyrant.

If it were left up to them they would. But morality is a communal issue, not and individual one. We all have to learn that we live in a community and that this involves some compromises for the good of all, for practical reasons.

You don't have children, do you?

I do.

Here's a clue. You don't have to teach children to be bad.

Animals are not naturally domesticated. That includes humans as well. We have to learn to be "human." Pecking order is common to biological communities; even ants have it.

That's situational ethics again. The Golden Rule goes against human nature.

Not really. It is only one aspect of it. Every human knows not to do what hurts. We learn that it's better not to hurt others lest they hurt us. It's approach-avoidance behavior.

Where did it come from and who gets to decide that it's good and we should live by it?

That which favors our individual, as well as communal well being.

Godel’s theorem would not prove that quantum uncertainty applies to the macro world. It proves that for the real number system, no matter how many axioms you assume to be true without proof, there will always be properties of real numbers that cannot be proved from the axioms.

Axioms are mathematical objects that are not composed of, nor analyzable into lesser constituent parts. Bertrand Russell detested them in principle as what he called "impredicativities," closed self-referential loops which cannot easily be reduced to what we today call "machine language." That's a clue right there....

Here's what I was trying to get at with my Gödel question:

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system[s] of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself. — Jones and Wilson, An Incomplete Education

Seems to be a lot of room for "free will" right there. :^) First, the axioms of a system in toto cannot fully account for "unprovable statements" regarding certain of its elements. I read this: What cannot be accounted for is something that cannot be "determined" by the system of axioms. Second, to remedy this situation, we can continue to add new syntactical rules and as many new axioms as necessary to "explain" the anomoly. But this is tacit recognition of the freedom it takes to expand/enlarge the system of axioms.

To me, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, while it does not "prove" free will, leaves plenty of room for it.

“To me, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, while it does not “prove” free will, leaves plenty of room for it.”

Fair enough. I see you didn’t need me to repeat what you already knew about the theorem. The proof I am referring to so vaguely is much more specific than that. I’ll try to get the reference and post it.

‘Axioms are mathematical objects that are not composed of, nor analyzable into lesser constituent parts. Bertrand Russell detested them in principle as what he called “impredicativities,” closed self-referential loops which cannot easily be reduced to what we today call “machine language.”’

Two quibbles. To be an axiom, a proposition needs to be assumed true without proof. I’m not sure what Russell is talking about. Take, for example, one of Euclid’s axioms (or postulates): “It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.” I would have no trouble reducing that to machine language. So I’m not sure that self-referential loops are an inherent property of axioms. But Russell was a pretty smart guy. So maybe he proved that anything assumed true created such a self referential loop??

[Scientists don't claim to know everything] Sure they do. Otherwise, why do they go around telling other people they're wrong about the supernatural and God?

They don't tell them they are wrong, they tell them they don't believe them there is supernatural or God. That's not knowing; that's believing. There is a difference. Likewise, believers believe (they don't call themsleves "knowers", except Gnostics) in the supernatural and in their god(s).

Scientists have been going around with a God complex for decades, ever since they ejected Him from consideration in the scientific process.

Nonsense. There is no recognized academic science department that deals with God.

They had to replace Him with something, so they made it themselves.

No they didn't. Most scientists don't believe in God. That's not a replacement. That's disbelief. There is a difference.

Science is a data gathering methodology, nothing more.

Science and technology go hand in hand. Science provides the theoretical, and technology the practical application of scientific knowledge. Together they produce things you use and depend on and have apparently no gratitude for. Which is why I say: toss out your blood pressure or diabetes pills and just let God regulate your endocrine and circulatory health. Toss science out the window if you don't believe in it.

Philosophy of some kind is essential to the interpretation and application of the data.

Don't be silly. What's the philosophical angle of an optical engineer designing your camera lens?

The whole concept that one can objectively test and observe experiments is philosophical in nature.

But we can read the Bible and interpret it objectively?

the problem is that most scientists don't recognize or acknowledge the philosophical base of science.

What is the "philosophical" basis for optics?

[There is nothing "Judeo-Christian" in any of it] Sure there is. The Judeo-Christian drives the application of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, you get Mengele's.

So, ancient Greeks developed math with Mengele's mindset? That's rich.

You claim that some things are *better* than others. What constitutes *better*?

It doesn't take a rocket science to know that for some things (money, food, warmth, etc.) to have is better than not to have, and to have more is better than to have less. There is no need to pretend to not know this. It also doesn't take a rocket science to know that for other things the opposite is true.

What standard do you use to justify your preference?

At the bottom of it, at the core, is always what feels good, what's personally agreeable.

What criteria do you use to decide what is *good*, and *bad* and *better* and *worse*? Reduce it to science.

Science does not deal with good and evil.

How does science form a basis for making value judgments on issues?

Science does not deal with value judgments. People add value judgments depending how things suit them personally or as a community.

The things that make life worth living are not provided by science or even outside Christianity.

Why do you champion the Golden Rule and yet reject the basis for it? Jesus is the one who taught that and yet you claim that you don’t know if God exists and deny Jesus’ divinity.

You claim that you don’t know if God exists when someone confronts you with your clear atheistic stance, but nobody is believing that.

Why do you come on RF threads and argue in favor of atheism and actively try to dissuade others from their faith in God?

Do you want us to give up our faith in God? Is that why you argue so strongly against belief in Him? How would you feel if you knew that by your line of reasoning, you convinced someone to abandon their faith in God?

The things that make life worth living are not provided by science or even outside Christianity.

Which Christianity? And I don't see Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. despairing over their lives being useless because they are not Christians.

Why do you champion the Golden Rule and yet reject the basis for it? Jesus is the one who taught that and yet you claim that you don’t know if God exists and deny Jesus’ divinity.

Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule. Your revisionism is a straw man.

You claim that you don’t know if God exists when someone confronts you with your clear atheistic stance, but nobody is believing that.

I never, ever, said God doesn't exist. I simply don't know if he does or doesn't. Is that a crime?

Why do you come on RF threads and argue in favor of atheism and actively try to dissuade others from their faith in God?

I came to this thread because betty boop pinged me. I told her I was not interested in her topic but mentioned as an aside that the very man who is responsible for bringing the Big bang into the scientific community is now saying the Big Bang never happened. I know she and A-G often talk about cosmology and I thought it would be of interest. Then I got a flood of silly comments to which I responded with my comments. I am simply telling you what I believe. What do you want me to do, lie?

So, I did not invite myself to dissuade anyone from their faith in God. You can believe whatever you want. I don't necessarily have to agree with you.

The subject was science, not God. You and others brought God into his. You are free to backtrack to my response to betty boop and establish who started what. You are also free to ignore my opinions if you think they are are worthless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

New World Order, New World Religion