Reason

The shock of 1983/84 had a profound effect on the School. There were moves for greater openness, a more gentle approach, and less of the grinding discipline. But like a supertanker it has taken a long time to turn the ship. The process continues, but what the present crisis teaches us is that there is further to go.

The means to do this is a familiar one - reason. In my view, this is not something we know enough about. Although we think of the School as being thoroughly reasonable, we are as an organization unable to look as critically at ourselves as we are at others. This means that our reason has some sentimentality in it. So let's look at it another way. What we need in order to be constructively self-critical is a solid understanding of the great tradition of philosophy. Without that, we cannot go forward.

This great tradition has a number of aspects to it. For the first time in history it's possible to gather the fruits of the world's philosophy together. We can learn from China the art of living with each other. We can learn from Europe the glory of reason and science. And from India, we can meet with the great metaphysical questions, about spirit. The School is grounded in Europe, but it has Indian philosophy as its reference point. Who can say what will come from a real meeting of these two traditions, until it has happened.

The starting point has to be knowledge. And in this, we are sorely deficient. Ask any hundred senior members of the School to write a short paragraph on Advaita Vedanta, and fewer than fifty would be able to do it. Fewer than ten would have any insight as to its relation to the wider traditions of India, or to the philosophical and religious traditions of Europe. This may be what is called in the Upanishads "lower knowledge", granted. But without the lower knowledge, can there be higher knowledge?

If all of those hundred members of the School were to have a real understanding of the basics of philosophy, they would be much better fitted to take the School forward. Indeed, if any hundred students were brought to a good level of understanding, the School would be transformed. What we have at the moment is a School that has not taught people to think, but to let others think on their behalf. We have created a School that very ably brings people through the introductory stages of philosophy, but has no vision of what should come next.

This is not only inadequate, it is against the great tradition of teaching. The tradition, at least as it is in India, is that the teacher gives the student two things: rahasya and sankalpa. Rahasya means the secret teaching. Sankalpa means the ability to decide things for oneself. It means that the faithful student who has learned the teaching diligently is then able to stand alone. He or she is independent and free. The teacher has done the work, and stands back.

The School has not understood this aspect of the tradition, because it has provided no way for its students to gain their independence. It is not aiming at giving them their freedom, but at keeping hold of them. This is not due to bad intentions, but to bad philosophy. Any education system that has no concept of rendering itself unnecessary, and no concept of allowing the student to come up with a better form of knowledge, will sooner or later become a burden to its students. The fresh knowledge that is always rising in the student, once he or she has absorbed the early lessons, will atrophy and turn in on itself, if it is not allowed to flourish fully.

This is not a call for the abolition of the School and its traditions, but for a transcendence of old concepts. The world needs a philosophy School. Whether the School of Economic Science can fulfill that role is yet to be seen.