This article is the first of a series.

1. Bennett on “The Time of Christ”

I have already summarised what Bennett wrote about the mysterious action of Christ, and especially, what happened at and followed from the Last Supper: https://www.josephazize.com/2019/07/06/bennett-the-masters-of-wisdom/ The chapter in The Masters of Wisdom is based upon a talk which Bennett gave on 4 August 1974 at Sherborne House. If I recall correctly, I was told by someone who was present that Bennett did not allow the talk to be recorded.

First, a word of caution: Bennett makes a number of assertions about historical matters of fact or probability which not even he was qualified to make. For example, he asserts that “Jesus was a Galilean and would not be expected to know about Qumran.” (Masters of Wisdom, 54) Why should knowledge of Qumran not have travelled to Galilee? It takes only person travelling in either direction to make the connection. Then, whose expectations is he speaking about, and why should his expectations be of relevance to us?  I will not dwell on the critique of Bennett, only point out that he is apt to ask us to accept his assertions. He has the middle-class English knack of making one feel lacking in good manners if one demurs or even so much as asks for one’s reasons. I suspect that he desired to have fewer loose ends than he was prepared to contemplate, i.e. to tell a fuller and more complete story than our sources allow. However, what he did discover – often through his experience – was almost astonishing; so some of his ideas need to be treated more fully, and pondered, for present purposes.

Bennett writes that there was a “transcendental mystery” which the Evangelists either did not know or were not allowed to disclose: “the way in which the Power of Love was to be transmitted to Man.” (54) Let us pause for a moment: this is the essence not only of Easter but of the earthly life of Christ, which found its consummation in His Passion, death, and Resurrection.

Bennett then ascribes each of the four Gospels to a different “school of wisdom, each entrusted with a different task.” (55) Again, he is here going beyond what we know, or anything he could have discovered: how does he know? He does not condescend to explain. If there were four such schools, what happened to them, and who coordinated the universal acceptance within the Church of these four? Further, while I can understand the claim that what we take as history is in fact wrong, in this instance, the evidence for the evangelists is simply too strong to be ignored. Also, there are clues in St John’s Gospel that he, the Beloved Disciple, understood: see esp. John 12:32 (“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself.”)

Now for Bennett’s answer to the ancient questions: why did Christ become man, and what did the death of Christ accomplish? The traditional teachings of the Church often excite ridicule. Although there were several theories, they turn around a death being necessary to implement the plans of an omnipotent God – and the question naturally arises: why would an all-powerful God require the death of His Son? How could His death provide some sort of satisfaction for the sins of humanity?

Here, Bennett is quite brilliant, stating the issues with an extraordinary precision: the exoteric Pauline interpretation of Christ’s mission as being to sacrifice Himself to propitiate God is difficult to accept, for we cannot see why God could not have forgiven sins without the Passion and death of Christ. It is easy, on this interpretation, to overstate the extent of human sinfulness, but as Bennett urges, I think with good reason: “Man is not so much sinful as weak and ignorant.” (55)

Then, he says, there is a mesoteric view: the “apocalyptic” Christianity of James and the small band of Essene disciples. (55)  I will accept for present purposes that the people of the Qumran documents were Essenes, even if not all Essenes were at Qumran. He does not pursue this, as it clearly did not take place in the time frame they expected. Bennett then comes to the third, esoteric interpretation, for which understanding he credits “my teacher Gurdjieff.” (56) So, I rather am inclined to believe that Gurdjieff gave Bennett the following idea. I shall refer to it as “Gurdjieff’s Esoteric Interpretation,” although I wish to stress that we can be confident only that the essential element of this interpretation was from Gurdjieff.

2. Gurdjieff’s Esoteric Interpretation

Bennett wrote: “The one thing certain is that a tremendous event did occur and has left its mark on humanity for nearly two thousand years. I believe that we do not and cannot know what the event was in its full majesty because it took place in a region that human consciousness cannot reach.” (56)

That is the heart. From this point on, I suspect that we are reading Bennett’s unfolding of Gurdjieff’s revelation to Bennett. (I use the word “revelation” intentionally). On my interpretation, Bennett’s first major additional point is that: “To bring about great and dramatic changes in the visible world it is necessary to bring about an interaction between all four worlds.” (56) The significance of this, as I understand it, is that in Bennett’s scheme there are only four worlds, at least so far as we can know. In other words: to bring about great and dramatic changes in the visible world it is necessary to bring about an interaction between all levels of the cosmos, from the most sublime to the lowest. He makes the startling observation that the Transfiguration demonstrated exactly this: the cosmic interplay at several levels. (64)

Bennett wrote “We seek to interpret an action that is beyond the mind of man in terms that derive from our human experience of this world.” (56) He then starts to go off into his own ideas of stages of human evolution. (57) More in line with Gurdjieff’s revelation, is that: “When Jesus had been baptised by John, he accepted the task entrusted to him by his Father, which was to transmit to those able to receive it the direction action of Divine Love.” (59) Only a “soul” free of all egoism can receive that Love. For that, Jesus had to prepare His apostles: a matter which Bennett perspicaciously notes is highlighted in the Gospel of Matthew. (59)

To release the force of Love, there had to be an “explosion of hate.” (65) Bennett may be correct, but he seems to suggest that Jesus released that explosion. I would have thought there was enough hate to go around for any purpose, and that, furthermore, Jesus could not deliberately evoke hate, only take advantage if it was manifested.

The Transfiguration, marking the new Covenant of Love, had to be accompanied by a certain humbleness, among the Apostles. (65-66) This sets the stage for Bennett’s assertion, which may be right, I feel that it may be, that: The true significance of the Last Supper was the transmission to the disciples of the power that had descended upon Jesus at the Transfiguration.” (66) The celebrated new commandment, given at that Supper: ” love one another even as I have loved you” (John 13:31-35) can only make sense, Bennett avers, because it was “part of a special action connected with the transmission of the power to love as Jesus loved.” (67)

Judas’ action, Bennett says, developing an idea of Gurdjieff’s, was that he (Judas) took upon himself that Satan should enter into himself (i.e. Judas) so that “no satanic action should occur,” and for this reason he left the room of the Last Supper at once. (67-68) This was necessary, because “Love cannot enter where there are egoism, hate, and envy. These are represented by Satan.” (68) I am now going to put it another way, but one which I think is fair: on this account, Judas was the archtetype of the scapegoat.