On Silence, Stillness and Being Cool

What is the sound of one hand clapping? Whatever it is, it's not much like a conversation.

The School's understanding of stillness is, I believe, one of its main stumbling blocks. Having said that, it certainly seems to have a support in the words of Shantananda. Didn't he say that one's little store of sattva is worth all of the rajas and tamas in the world? Didn't he say that to control the mind one must let go of its habitual attachments and movements, and rest "with mind intent on Me"? Didn't he say that the wise man, who appears to do nothing, is more effective than many active men?

He said all these things and more. But before I pack my bags, let's consider some things from our own tradition of philosophy. Let's take the example of Socrates, as we find him in the early dialogues. Socrates characterises himself as a gadfly, an irritant on the rump of his society, goading it to think and reflect. He was so annoying, in fact, that he managed to get himself executed. Was Socrates a rajasic pest? No. He had a purpose. When it came to it, he proved himself to be that rare thing, a philosopher who was prepared to die for philosophy.

One of my favourite cartoons has a man standing in the clouds, looking haggard and unshaven, dressed in a white shift. He says to another man, holding a harp and looking surprised, "I never thought hell would be this bad!" The poet Robert Burns expressed a similar sentiment in one of his epitaphs:

Here lies Bogheid amang the deid
In hopes to gain salvation
But if such as he in heaven may be
Then welcome, hell damnation!

Indeed, scripture speaks of this. There is a story from the Mahabharata (at least, in the film version!) After the great battle, Yuddhisthira makes his final journey, and finds himself in heaven. All around him are his enemies - Duryodhana and all the rest. He wonders where his brothers are, and he is told that they are roasting in the pit of hell. Yuddhisthira says that he would rather be in hell with his friends than in heaven with his enemies, and takes his leave.

All of which is merely to say that there is more to heaven than meets the eye at first blink. As the Gita has it, that which seems like nectar turns out to be poison; while that which seems like poison turns out to be nectar. There is a false stillness, which is poison to philosophy. Jesus reserved his special anger for the Pharisees, the "whited sepulchres", who look beautiful from the outside but are dead within.

His Holiness makes a similar point, though if I may say more beautifully, when he speaks of oranges and melons. Some people, he says, are like oranges: from the outside they seem unified, but within they are all divided. Others are like melons. Some melons look from the outside as if they are segmented; some look unified. But all melons are single within. What he is saying is that we should not worry about appearing still or agitated, but about what is within. The stillness of the heart is the true stillness. If Socrates teaches us anything, it's that we may cause a lot of agitation around us in the philosophical life. That is not our concern. Beneath the apparent poison is the nectar of truth.

The story cuts both ways, of course. The appearance of agitation might mask real agitation. Something that looks poisonous may indeed be poison. How can we tell the difference? Discussion and conversation. Until someone speaks it's almost impossible to tell what lies beneath. On the Internet, anyway.

We in the School love stillness and silence ... they are part of our 'thing'. The School Cool is a way to be that says, "Hey, I'm a dude with no attitude". Well, dude - how confident are you of that? Unless you speak up, you'll never really know.

Dozens of people are reading this blog, silently. Including YOU!