Feedback

There have been quite a few e-mail responses to this blog, but I regret that people have not so far posted comments publicly, with the honourable exception of roguepandit (see 'Reason' below) and JDoe23 (see above).

One of the problems we have in the School is that we have public discussions in which we say what we feel is acceptable, and private ones in which we say what we feel and think. My belief is that this is anti-philosophical.

It is always flattering to receive criticism, because it means that the person delivering it thinks one is worth attacking. So thank you, JDoe23.

There are a number of points here, including a concern that negativity will (a) put people off from participating and (b) give ammunition to critics of the School. These are of course considerations, but one of the things I believe is that the 'friends' and the 'enemies' of the School need to find a common language and understanding. This will only come by plain speaking.

The main thrust of JDoe23's argument is that this blog would be better if I expressed myself in terms such as s/he uses in the first paragraph. I put it to all of you that the most tamasic member of the School imaginable would find nothing to disturb his sleep in what JDoe23 says. This is, after all, our customary sleeping pill: "We have been offered an opportunity ... we need to work harder to understand and to put it into practice ... and then we might just start to get a glimpse of what this pesky thing unity really means". Take twice daily before meditation ... zzzzzzzzzz

Why does that idea send us to sleep? Because the subtext is: someone else knows these things.

I'm not saying that JDoe23 believes that, but that we need to shake up our thinking, and that his or her suggested approach to this isn't going to get it done. There is no-one else who is going to do our philosophy for us. There is no-one else who has a magical understanding of philosophy 'out there', whether in India or anywhere else. We are responsible for the School. We are responsible for the society in which we live. We need to stop worrying about ourselves and start the work.

This morning I read a passage from the 1982 Conversations in which HH mentioned being "the mind-tool of the Absolute". That phrase gives me shivers: not because of what Shantananda is saying, but because of how the School has understood it in the past. We worry about the 'mind-tool' part, thinking "that doesn't sound like me. If I were more like Mr X, THEN I might know what the Absolute means". By giving so much of our energy and attention to this negative criticism of ourselves, we ensure that we remain bound. What Shantananda means is not that we should become a kind of honed chisel; but that we can conform our thoughts to the universal.