At the language lecture a couple of years back, Mr Jaiswal delivered the following speech:
"There are three kinds of people on this path. There are those who obey; there are those who inquire; and there are those who know. In the School of Economic Science, we have raised obedience to a formidable height".
What I took from this, when I had stopped laughing, is that the next step for the School is to inquire. We don't know: we only have the words of knowledge. So, we have to inquire in order to find out what they mean.
I would say the same to Son of Moses in respect of revelation, which, as I said before, is the lifeblood of philosophy. It may seem that we have the words of Jesus or Buddha, but it's not so. In Jesus' case, the Gospel writers are generally thought to be writing more than a generation after his death. They contradict each other. In Buddha's case, it seems to have been as much as two centuries before the basic texts were set down. Why did no-one record what they said at the time?
It seems to me that when you have the real meeting, the revelation, the most evident thing is that there is not much that can be said. Words will not suffice, they only lead away. It's only when the memory starts to fail that words are set down, to preserve something of the past.
The opportunity for the School is not that we become some repository of knowledge about the past, but that we become a place where the real meeting can happen - today, or tomorrow. Our revelation, our knowledge, our wisdom, is yet to come into being.
We need to inquire without pretentiousness, now.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The Real Inquiry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
There is, I suppose, always a potential cloud hovering in the background of any state of grace, and the cloud shadowing obedience has a very modern chill to it. Even satwa has its sunny, dreamy complacency.
In the autumn of 2004 there was a meeting to celebrate the life of Sheila Rosenberg. Many people were invited, including former students of the School. The hall was full.
In many ways the event properly acknowledged and celebrated her life. I recall Sheila Rosenberg as a lady of piercing intelligence, wit and great insight. Yet we were told that she was 'always obedient'.
I did not experience this as her chief quality - rather, it was her stature, almost her Renaissance strength, that so impressed me and convinced me that it was possible to be a lady in the School of high intelligence as well as dignity.
I don't think there's anything wrong with obedience - it´s the chief virtue of Karma Yoga.
For someone who is more interested in Jnana (knowledge) or Bhakti (devotion) it's just not such a big issue. So what I would say - and, I think, what Mr J was saying, is that we shouldn´t get so hung up on the issue of obedience. Sure, it´s important to some people and always will be. But it´s not important to others, and we should have no problem with that.
The Western way is to imagine that there has to be just one way. The Eastern way is that everyone is allowed to find their own way. That aspect of the teaching hasn´t yet been recognised in the School.
One aspect of getting too hung up on discipline is that you imagine there can only be one way.
So true. In the Hindu canon of praise Jesus Christ is regarded as a holy man - that's how inclusive it is.
Without aiming for understanding there is no teaching, only instruction. For example, when learning to cross the road the basic instruction is to look right, look left, look right again and cross when the road is clear. But if the road is never clear the instruction ultimately fails and the student gains no benefit from it as they are left on the original side of the road - until they are taught to judge speed and distance to establish whether the road is clear enough and gain sufficient experience to put this into practice...
It doesn't matter how many questions you ask if you are obedient to the point that you believe you've already been told the only answer.
I would agree with anonymous here. The obedience to the initial instruction is essential for (most) beginners, but even from the first I think the intelligent person is trying to make sense of it all within themselves, so that they become independent of the instructor.
There is a belief in the School - it's not exactly a doctrine, no-one says it - that one must always be looking up to someone else, until self-realization. It's hard to say how this belief came about, because even in 1965 His Holiness told a story about the poor man who saw the king praying to God and went away, saying that there was no point in asking someone for anything who in turn prayed to someone else.
The real tradition - going back millennia - is that there be no intermediary between the seeker and the goal.
The other thought that anonymous has raised is that if the School is to have a future, then philosophy must have a future.
If we are just a teaching institution, passing on existing knowledge to the ignorant, then the School will not last much longer.
The School has of course never been that, but it needs to find a new identity, now. We no longer have Mr MacLaren and so we need to redefine our purpose and energy.
Maybe this conversation has moved on. The fact is tht after writing the following some days ago, I have only just worked out how to post directly onto this site.
I am commenting on Vayukesha's ideas concerning revelation and whether the 'scriptural' word can have real life in it or else is merely a dead thing of the past.
Vayukesha, before he surprised me by posting my screed on this blogsite, sent me an annotated reply to my vapourings. Taken from the points he raised are the following statements, each containing points with which I wish to take issue.
‘Words... (however) special... will only be words at the end of the day, still in need of recognition and ignition from the spark of human consciousness (the listener’s).’
‘From the standpoint of the self, scripture is... (not) significant... The Gita says that after self-realisation the scriptures are like a well in a flooded land.’
‘Words are ignited by human intelligence and devotion which clothes them in meaning and gives them new life. People give life to words, not the other way around.’
The first issue that exercised me was the precise meaning and significance of such words here as ‘word’ itself, ‘human consciousness’, scripture, meaning, and people.
Another issue I got thinking about was the dividing line between consciousness, word, thought and meaning. Is there one? If so, how do these factors relate to each other. This is a fascinating subject to reflect on.
As I see it at present, all these entities - word, thought, ‘human consciousness’ ego, speech and meaning –are aspects of the Primal Consciousness, often called Brahman. Each exists on an ascending scale of levels, ascending, that is, towards the infinite Brahman.
Thus the subject with which we are presently concerned, namely ‘word’, must exist on many levels, the written word being perhaps the coarsest.
At a subtler level it is a word being spoken in our heart that gives rise to our present individual existence.
With such thoughts, I was beginning to develop a vague notion of coming back at Vayukesha, when along came another post on his site which refuted me directly and in public. Well, I wasn’t going to tolerate this in silence, was I? My mettle aroused, I decided to gird me and fight.
So, take this.
In the beginning was the Word, the ‘Primal Word’ No Primal Word, no people; no people, no human consciousness. Thus it is the Word that gives life to people, not the other way round.
V. says the listener’s human consciousness has to recognise and ignite the word. On the contrary, I find the chief igniting agent in my life to be words, even sometimes words found in a book. Indeed, it seems that certain words, very special words with a very special provenance, have the power to connect me with the innate meaning of things in my heart. This is perhaps the subtlest form of word, very close to pure consciousness itself.
It is therefore a question, not of whether words are necessary for realization, but of which words we have recourse to. Indeed, we have to take what help we can and the words of scripture are a very effective way into the spiritual world, giving a reliable toehold on the path to the true self. They have been carefully collected for their potency and preserved down the ages precisely because of this extraordinary power. Like rubbing Alladin’s lamp, we use them in such practices as reflection, where they lead us to the deeper meaning within, and ultimately to the Self itself.
As for the Gita quote (2/46), the original verse says that ‘the Vedas.. have no utility for the enlightened one’. Indeed, this must be so. What need can a realised man or woman continue to have for philosophy? On the other hand, for the ‘human consciousness’, that of types such as ourselves, there is a very definite need. The unrealised is deeply dependent on words.
Although I have hardly warmed to my theme, this post has already gone way beyond blog-length. I will draw to a close with a text and a story.
The text comes from what I believe to be one of the most authoritative (yes, that word ‘authoritative’) sources of truth to emerge in the 20th century. It is drawn from lectures 232 and 233 of the Pathwork Guide (See www.path-work.info. Very few people know of this incredibly beautiful, complete and detailed teaching).
In these excerpts the Guide alternates between speaking of the word as the macrocosm, the primal creative impulse, and the microcosm, the inner voice creating the destiny and environment of each individual:
‘The word is the first creative impulse... the expression of an intent, and the word gives form to the intent... The word is the first blueprint, it is the plan. There is a tremendous power in the word, whether the word is spoken with a loud voice or spoken in silence with an inner voice, affirmative and decisive. The word is the chisel, it is the tool with which you shape and give form to the soul substance that dwells in you and in which you simultaneously dwell...
The word is both expression and creation. It is plan, knowledge, opinion, consciousness... The word is what is behind all creation. Creation cannot exist without a word spoken, known, held, believed in and committed to...
The word... can be the divine will or the will of the cut-off, ignorant and destructive particle of consciousness. Be it conscious or not, the word is the sum total of your beliefs in any given area...
The word is eternal. It always will be. God spoke the word and from that word all creation, including your personality, came into being. It is the blueprint behind all you can see, experience, and feel...
Every situation you experience is the product of a word you have spoken, and are perhaps still speaking constantly within, in one way or another, on one level of awareness or another.
The story comes from the Hasidic tradition. It tells of Rabbi Moses of Karlin, who told his congregation that when they uttered a word before God they should enter that word with every one of their limbs. A congregant asked how a big human being could possibly enter such a little word. ‘Anyone who thinks himself bigger than the word’, said the Rabbi, ‘is not the kind of person we are talking about’.
I'm glad to have provoked a response, but this is not yet the real Son of Moses speaking ...
Son of Moses has a lot of quotations to offer. But I would challenge him to speak for himself on the subject of the word, or if he prefers and has experience of it, the Word. Anyone can quote from apparently unassailable scripture. Where does that leave us? I won't play that game.
Let us imagine a world without words, in which we all must create our own meanings afresh. Then let us imagine a world without any conscious beings, but full of words. An empty library with no-one to turn its pages. Which is living, and which dead?
The consciousness gives life to the word; and not the other way around ... perhaps Christ is supposed to be the Word in the Gospel of John, but there is still the consciousness behind that.
But to speak about scriptural meanings might be to miss the point, anyway. This site is about the future of the School, and not the nature of the universe.
I think there is a clear division between those who believe primarily in the authority of old books and those who believe that the wisdom of the past is just one aspect of philosophy. Whether we suppose some ethereal realm in which the words exist, or not, makes little difference.
If all the wisdom of the universe is in the past tense, then why bother with a School at all? Have we nothing to add? Is there no question that has not been settled already?
I imagine that if people spoke for themselves they might use very different words than those they take from others. Borrowing is easy, speaking hard; at least, until one gets used to it.
If I may quote from just one person, it would be His Holiness, who says (I think in The Man Who Wanted to Meet God) that the fastest and surest way to make spiritual progress is to speak from the heart, and act from one's speech. Not to study, and hoard words, and regurgitate.
This is the real philosophy; and I suspect, and believe, and have faith that if we follow this teaching and speak from the heart the truth as it seems to us today, and do the same tomorrow, then we will find that our little words are not different from the Word itself.
But, on the other hand, if we merely borrow, and quote, and hedge our bets with the words of the 'wise', we might find our hoard of knowledge empty at the close of the day.
Judging from the shrill tone of Vayukesha's response, I must have struck a nerve.
Perhaps if I change the subject briefly this may give him time to cool down.
There is, I think, something wrong with the timing mechanism on this site. I entered my post yesterday in the late afternoon, yet it registered 12.10. V. must have responded sometime between then and 3.36 am, which is when I am reading his response, yet it registers 5.16. ??
Rather than pronounce on a perceived emotional tone, Son of Moses might respond to some of the points raised.
Dear V.
I find your accusatory tone quite offputting.
I would indeed welcome the chance to conduct a proper dialogue on such important matters with someone who can carry on discussion like a gentleman.
Instead, it seems that you have set me up as some sort of straw man against whom you now seize every opportunity to fling your numerous pet barbs and theories. Perhaps you have stored them up for a long time and this is at last your golden moment. At last you have found someone that fits the profile of your imaginary persecutor.
I sympathise, but I have to say that the things you accuse me of I neither recognise nor can defend, since I cannot see a great deal of sense or coherency in the position you take.
Gentlemen - perhaps too much football? Or too many words?
Dear Son of Moses
I'm sorry to have upset you, and if I have been making you a straw man for numerous personal hobby horses then that must be frustrating.
However I think you might acknowledge that your own approach is not without its barbs ... "shrill", telling me to "calm down" and to be a "gentleman". Even the first words you sent to me (which you suggested that I post here, despite your later surprise) were loaded with emotive charge "I think that a lot of what you say in your post of June 13th is a sort of half truth, or, to be more polite, an expression of only one side of the truth."
That phrase "to be more polite" not only makes it clear that you believe my view to be in fact a half truth, but also accords yourself a social polish which I do not, by implication, possess. So you have been on the attack from the first moment.
That's absolutely fine with me. I would welcome, and indeed prefer, a frank exchange of views to one where feelings are concealed by "gentlemanly" pretensions. If there are angry feelings there - and I think there are, in you as well as me - then why not express them honestly? It is not that there has to be emotion, but that if there is, there is.
Let us not pretend any more to be above our feelings. That has been a curse for the School. The tutor behaves as if he or she has no emotions, and thereby becomes the cold parental buddhi looking down impassively on the badly-behaved children that the students become.
That is all very well, and I understand how it came about, but it is not what His Holiness taught, nor how he taught.
"In the beginning was the Word"
?
I have been given to understand that a more accurate translation is 'thought' or 'reason'. Does this change the argument?
I suspect that goes to the heart of it.
Perhaps this discussion might be moved on to the "knowledge created or evolved" post?
Post a Comment