Friday, June 23, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A place to meet for honest and positive dialogue about the School, and about the Teaching it exists to offer. Stop, listen, respond and participate. A principal reference point is the words of His Holiness Sri Shantananda Sarasvati.
16 comments:
Possibly we might think about this as whether "philosophy" is the activity of passing knowledge from the relatively wise to the relatively ignorant; or one of exploring together.
Maybe the first could be undergraduate philosophy, and the second postgraduate. Both seem to be important in their way.
I would have liked to have said 'equals', that out of relative ignorance a knowledge is fructified by action within a group.
But it doesn't seem to be the case.
One does need a teacher, a leader and a referee.
Undergraduate and postgraduate is possibly too structured a concept. Too much associated with having 'passed'.
I'd prefer the idea of a recipe for a meal. The chef sets the menu and the cooks all get busy. Along the way they learn to follow the recipe, to observe and cook, then they experiment, analyse substances and technique, refine and, in the end, may become geniuses of the flying wok themselves.
Yes, but the flying wok is forever vanishing into the distance.
I'd like to take the emotion out of learning in School. When the teacher has done his job, the student is recognised as someone who has now to stand on his own - I think in pandit-language it's called a sthita-prajna, someone who takes a stand in knowledge.
You don't need to be self-realised to stand on your own two feet, or to think for yourself. Or to have your own devotional relation to God.
Slightly off-message (but with relevance to disappearing flying woks), I liked the following Underground Poem I saw in the tube yesterday. It's by Stephen Dunn.
Happiness
A state you must dare not enter
with hopes of staying,
quicksand in the marshes, and all
the roads leading to a castle
that doesn't exist,
But there it is, as promised,
with its perfect bridge, above
the crocodiles,
and its doors forever open.
Ha ha! That's a brilliant image of the 'other' version of "my doors are always open". In fact the text is exactly the same, it's just the notes that differ:
Our doors are always open * # ^
* if you're prepared to come in on our terms
# but they close behind you
^ and you're free to leave, but you'll be going to hell, tut-tut.
LOL, thank you V! Even if the bullying isn't pro-active, in the way that it certainly was prepared to punish people for attempting to leave, the very fact that there are comments about not wasting the teaching on people outside school as they are 'asleep' is a subconcious way of bullying members into staying. Demanding long hours for group/service etc changes the social position of the member and makes it more difficult to leave as well. All subtle pressures but combined have a strong influence on the individual's decision.
Hell, oh dear! And here was me thinking it was only Limbo.
When I left (now back after long sabbatical)I certainly wasn't punished for it. If anything, I was the one to beat myself up about it.
But certainly there is a prevalent fear amongst School members of being 'left alone' in the outside world. Relax! The waters are not that cold.
For what it's worth, I'd like to mention the following experience. I learnt to drive when I turned forty. Did quite well but in my first test failed on the uphill start. Long summer vacation, no lessons or practice, and I received only a couple of warm-up lessons afterwards before passing with flying colours.
What can one draw from that? What I learnt is that, in a period of quiet, lessons learnt but not fully digested can become internalised and much more readily available then during a long slog.
It's not always applicable, of course.
Ubuntu, with respect, I think that is a slightly different point.
The issue at hand isn't that the student should stop being afraid, but that the School should not be frightening people.
This blog isn't, for me, about sorting myself out, but about sorting out our School. At least of the two that's the more manageable job, hee hee!
I don't think of 'being afraid' and 'frightening' as separate items, more like two sides of the same coin.
'Frightened' people know the value of fear and will often leverage fear, perhaps intentionally to avoid being cast off or in order to please a superior and avoid punishment.
Perhaps more to be watched are the power-hungry who require fear to do the work that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
But sometimes one can't do much about either category in any direct way. Then the only recourse is to stand up for what one believes - however imperfectly - and not accept the smooth rejoinder. Even the harsh one.
Without a victim the bully may thrash around for a while but only succeeds in stabbing his own toe. In some subtle sense the victim has to 'agree' to be a victim. Which is why I'd say that the bully and the victim need each other.
Of course that is true, but I don't think you're aware of the extent to which your focus on "the beaten donkey" as a participant in its own beating is very heart-warming to the guy with the stick.
It's an argument often recited hereabouts.
Take away the stick, then reassure the donkey that it doesn't need it. Don't try and persuade the donkey that if only it stopped wanting the stick, the guy would hit himself with it. It might happen, but more likely you just leave the poor beast feeling not only sore but guilty.
Ask the Penguin People.
I should say that I am exaggerating here with respect to beatings and criticism ... we're speaking here of very subtle things, still hanging around from auld lang syne. Not worth mentioning, almost, except that the standards of a School should be so high.
Actually, what I was attempting to point out is that the school fosters a dependency culture. This in turn creates fear in the individual. I sincerely hope that the pro-active bullying no longer takes place but the formulaic, subconsious HABIT of bullying is still most definitely present, just not recognised because it is so habitual. As V says, the school should not be frightening people, but it does, by gradually distancing them from 'The World' to the point where some can no longer cope in the world. This is a point on which you have to discard 'personal experience' and listen to the small voices.
Yes, that's true.
I suppose my view would be that the School doesn't have the grip over people's lives that it used to. I was a member of the Youth Group that started in the early 90s. The one after us (say 1992?) was much less subservient than us, and that was in fact the last such group in the UK. Even 15 years ago it was evident that the tide had turned.
For me, the question is not really about stopping harm - it still happens to some degree, but worse things happen to people at (ordinary) school or university or at work, or at home with their families, and I can give plenty of examples if you like - but about creating the right environment for philosophy.
That is a more delicate issue, and a more positive one because it is about the present and the future, not the past.
I would counter that with just because worse happens in other places doesn't justify it happening anywhere - especially not in an organisation that claims to have the highest standards.
Ok, it's taken a bit of time to find the questions I want to ask in response. Is it possible for people who are dependent / fearful to grow spiritually? Or do they remain dependent / fearful and essentially caught in quicksand? Doesn't the school owe a greater duty of care to these people than to the ones who are more able to benefit from the teaching? And is it possible for the school to progress philosophically if it doesn't provide care for all?
The cynical view would be that they are of great value because they the school stalwarts who never progress but continue to fund and labour for the school until they expire. Is this fair?
My answer to that would be that it's not - the first virtue is courage (Plato, Bhagavad Gita), ergo while there is fear spiritual work can't begin. Some normally fearful people will sometimes have fearless moments in which they can progress, but it's not ideal.
I agree with you that there is a special duty of care towards people like that due to any errors that there may have been in the way the School has conducted itself. We are talking here about people who are still in the School, I presume. If they're not, then I guess that they have decided to look elsewhere and might regard any attempt to help as condescension.
However accurate or inaccurate the 'cynical view' may be, it is totally without any merit. I would be revolted if anyone suggested such a thing. We are past the time I hope when the willing workers, labouring joylessly, can be seen as receiving or giving benefit.
As to the point just above (if it's the same Anonymous) there's no intention to justify anything, just to put it in perspective. The issue at the moment is achieving higher standards, as you say.
Post a Comment