Namely a 4-day festival of the finest Arts and Crafts.
Someone told me the other day that the generation of people who started Art in Action had come to believe that it would just stop when they gave it up. Over the past couple of years, however, the jobs have been getting handed over gradually to a younger generation. It remains to be seen whether the transition will be successful. Will there still be tea?
What surprised me, though, was that these people really thought they were indispensable. Whatever happened, may I ask, to "ahankara must go"?
Paradoxically, the culture of total obedience, discipline, and "work until you are told to stop" (or "drop") ends up with some people believing all the more that they are essential to the process. Of course, for the true devotee who serves without question, there is no egotism. The problem afflicts far more those who have to think and be creative.
This is what we see in the generation that has more or less run the School for the past 20 years. They are impressive, powerful, charismatic individuals, who believe, underneath it all, in their own impressive and charismatic individuality. Looking at them one does not believe, "I could do that" but, "Wow! What a Special Person. So different from little me."
There's nothing wrong with people being "big beasts", except when their bigness comes from keeping other people in their place. The culture of belittling students is what feeds what some call Great Man Syndrome. The poor students get so befuddled that they are actually grateful for this. If you're just a little 'un you need some protection.
Actual greatness, on the other hand, makes you feel big. It makes you feel equal to itself, and indeed to anything.
It's ironic to see that the Big Beasts have been for some time floundering in pessimism and self-doubt. Unable to imagine a future without themselves, they keep up appearances until the last minute ... slip behind the velvet curtain ... and engineer their own disappearance in a puff of smoke.
Well, thanks for everything guys.
Now ... anyone for philosophy?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
A Great Beast Approaches
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
If there's nobody to take over then the responsibility for that belongs to the 'great men' (and women) who prescribe (and proscribe for that matter) but fail to teach. If they concentrated on teaching then there would be big pools of people capable of taking on the various roles.
Happily there are pools, even a river from time to time. No one - but no one -is indispensable. It's a golden rule: politicians learn it, business moguls learn it, even philosophers have to learn it. The old invariably gives way to the new.
Those who don't understand this are living in a bubble, untouched by the cruel winds of fate, until such time as the bubble bursts. This bubble is sustained by the treacherous belief in one's own propaganda.
In this respect the School is better placed than other organisations in that
the teaching encourages 'not this, not this'. Why, then, do big beasts puff up? Well, anybody might, given the hierarchical and laudatory nature of the School. Do senior people still think of themselves as an aristocracy?
Coo 'er, matey, there's your answer.
Playing Devil's Advocate here, you could say the School is worse placed than other organizations, because it thinks it has this Teaching that exempts it from normal reasonable operation.
See the earlier post "Wrasslin'" for an account of what we were told about generational succession. Proof positive that we don't 'have' the teaching that we have.
Yup, 'clinging to the wreckage' of the old(pass the arthritis pills).Every traditional teaching needs new interpretations. The meditation we've been given is not that of the ancients but was adapted to suit the modern age.
As with content so with organisation.
When he was a young child Nicholas Soames MP approached Winston Churchill, his grandfather.
'Are you the greatest man in England?' lisped young Soamsey.
'Yes,' came the reply. 'Now bugger off!'
Truly great men don't care for adulation.
....even if the language isn't of quite the refinement we expect of our dear School
More bad business language, accurate or not (but in my experience accurate enough in some situations) 'crap floats to the top' by which I'm referring to the practice of promoting people who talk the right talk without a critical analysis of their actual abilities and achievements or because they can't do the role they're currently in but can't be sacked - the only way is up...
We might ask the question: 'What would I/we do if I/we were in charge?' Would it be better and, if so, how?
How careful we'd be about fault finding then.
There needs to be confidence and happiness for all.
A day at Art in Action - as a helper and visitor there seemed to be confidence and happiness in abundance.
By an act of serendipity, I found myself on Vayukesha's team in the morning, and in the afternoon toured the grounds.
One or two highlights: a Chinese girl making exquisite silk embroidery pictures, her needle flashing in and out - and she'd remembered that she was part of the picture and was exquisite also.
Davod Azad playing and singing songs of Rumi in the late afternoon - powerful but controlled, devotional and sweetly magnetic. He plays in London on 30 September, see www.sjss.org.uk.
And, as if by chance, lying in the shade of a marquee, hat over eyes, at peace with all that was, and when I took the hat away there was the blue sky and a turquoise guy-rope with the sun gilding it. It was love at first sight.
Everyone has their moments. The point is that Art in Action can - amidst all the activity - offer these little moments of bliss. Someone else may like to say more on this.
Davoud Azad played at the Demo Dinner too. It was great, but the highlight for me was Jaya Jaitly who followed him onto the stage. Don't know much about Indian society but she seems to be a kind of ideal 'Auntie'. She said, "I don't have any music to give you, only my words ..." She spoke about how she'd brought a group of artists and craftspeople over for the event, some of whom had never been out of India. One young artisan was on the point of giving up his career as an embroiderer, when she told him that if he worked hard and produced good work she might take him to England with her.
She reminded me that art is about people, first and foremost. Like philosophy.
Auntie must have played a large part in making the Indian marquee such a lovely place this year.
Art in Action seems to have worked through its 'handover' phase this year. It's more confident although there are still areas which need rejuvenating.
However, I wonder if the cadets could forego marching. It must be very tempting for them - but it's a bit odd at an arts festival.
I saw her reassuring the I/C at one point, who was getting a bit frantic and insisting, "I'm a very calm person!"
Too right about the cadets. Several times at quiet moments during performances their stentorian cries and tramping boots were an unwelcome interruption. Why?
I think it is necessary to differentiate between ahankara claiming "I am indispensible" and the practical reality that there aren't that many willing to come forward and take on large amounts of work and responsibility. I suggest the latter view is not entirely groundless?
That's certainly a possibility. Thank you very much for bringing that up.
However, I would like to put another view. I was in the School for about 12 years before I was asked a non-rhetorical question ('What do you think?' as opposed to 'Is this not so?' - this from the suddenly-pioneering Economics department, I might add.
I recall meeting the man who was in charge of the Youth Group for decades, who bemoaned to me that he could not get a group even to commit to a residential weekend. Suddenly the thought came into my mind, "If he asks me a question now, I could tell him why that is". I don't know what I would have said to him, because he never asked. He continued talking about the Kali Yuga and the decline of society - ie blaming the young. Soon afterwards the Youth Group shut its doors.
So I would put the question to you another way - if people are not prepared to take on the work, could it be because they do not feel inspired? Your suggestion seems to assume that "the run-down in society" is to blame. I would suggest that it is more a matter of a run-down in the School.
We used to inspire people, now we don't. That's not their problem, but ours. The School is getting older and greyer. No offence to the grey-hairs - he says, checking the mirror!
I think we have lost our cutting edge by failing to take the philosophy forward. We could easily address this, if we could recognise and diagnose the problem.
The once-moribund Economics department has shown us the way, and has demonstrated that the School can be relevant, and open, and can find its natural friends in the world. They started that process not by offering a solution to a perceived problem, but by asking people a question.
PS Please come back and have another crack at me - it's the only way we can take this forward.
PPS Why not give yourself a blogger ID, or just click "other" instead of anonymous next time. It helps to identify a voice, even if it's an alias.
Should also add, lest anyone suspect my own willingness to be a worker, that I've been doing duties faithfully since part 2 - 20 years come next Easter.
I'm being deliberately provocative in this post, of course. No-one would wish to run down the magnificent efforts of those who created Art in Action. However, my concern is not that they didn't do the work well, but that they didn't bring people on to take it over - and that this is a general issue in the School.
They learned, but they didn't teach.
Vayukesha said...
"That's certainly a possibility..."
I agree, it's a possibility. I posed a question and did not come with a pre-conceived answer. And I still don't have an answer.
Ultimately, if what you say is true (& much of it sounds pretty accurate to me) then the younger generation must take responsibility, and challenge and inquire and keep the real questions alive. Not out of a desire to rebel or put anyone else down but out of a true desire for what is real.
"Seek and ye shall find..."
"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear..."
Both these quotes say to me that if there is true inquiry then there will be a true response. I think we need to trust this, and inquire and challenge from this spirit.
I welcome what you write. I agree that the cutting egde needs sharpening and I believe that the truth itself has nothing whatsoever to fear from being challenged. So why should we be afraid of this?
One more thing. You write elsewhere about the limitations of this form of communication. I think there is a danger here, perhaps more than elsewhere, of wrongly interpreting the 'stance' of someone posting here. I try to choose my words carefully, and to question, not defend some pre-existing structure. That is the intention anyway!
PS - I decided upon 'kapila'. Maybe I am a sage, maybe I am a monkey. Who knows...
Hi Kapila
I like the name, and like your style!
Sorry if it seemed that I misinterpreted what you said. As you say, the limitations of the form. In my defence, I should say that there are certain assumptions that I think underly a lot of thinking in the School, subconsciously. Because they are deep and subconscious, anyone questioning them has to work pretty hard to counter them. One of these is "the run-down in society" ... on which you said nothing. All you suggested was that the blame may lie elsewhere. Perhaps that is right.
Even so, I think that it is not useful for the School to reflect on the failings of others, or its environment, while it has so much self-examination to do.
In any case, the limitations of this form being what they are, all we can do is accept that we may have picked someone up wrong, not take it too personally if someone does the same to us, and keep the conversation going.
Hi Vayukesha
I agree with what you say about subconscious thinking. In my experience, even the word 'subconscious' is usually rejected without understanding how the speaker is using the word. Over time, repeated 'rejection' and 'approval' from an authority figure leads the mind down a certain track. At least if you give your consent to that occurring?
I need to clarify again, not to assert my ego, but for the sake of understanding. When I said "there aren't that many willing to come forward and take on large amounts of work and responsibility", this wasn't intended as blame of society, or the young, or the kali-yuga. Just how it appears to me. Disregarding the word 'blame' we could ask what are the causes of this? (open question) I can certainly observe in myself a resistance to more duties!
I often hear in the school, "people are weaker", which does, as you say, sound like blaming the young. I have heard elsewhere that to be even partly awake in the kali-yuga is a sign of great strength given the forces arrayed against us. Perhaps this is a more generous view?
But I still suggest, and you didn't respond on this, that the young have a duty to inquire and to challenge. As you say, the environment of the school is sometimes not conducive to this. Perhaps this is why people leave? The debate is no longer 'alive', just being required to accept the conclusions written on the piece of paper. But "if" that is the situation then what is the conscious response to it?
"Never complain about what you permit." ~Anthony de Mello
To take up your central point, you're right that young people have to enquire. And I have to say that there is not very much of that going on. Assuming that the young people in the School are at least no worse than others (indeed, it used to be supposed that those coming out of St James were especially favoured in birth and education ... but we can leave that to one side) then it must be said that the culture of the School has not fostered much of a spirit of enquiry in them.
Quite the reverse - my observation is that it produces people who are frightened to think. "Thinking", after all, is a major bogeyman of the old School. Along with "ideas", "mind" and "feelings".
If tamas is ignorance and sattva is enlightenment, then enquiry is rajas. The School tries to go, it seems, from tamas to sattva in one leap, without going through the rajasic churning that purifies the thoughts and leads to right discrimination. The young are taught to fear doubt and shun uncertainty, instead of welcoming them as natural to someone who lacks wisdom. If you don't know, then common sense says that you should doubt.
We can't really blame people for being as they are. The conscious response, I think, is for people who are more awake to the situation to challenge it. Maybe since others cannot, they need to challenge three times as much as they would be personally inclined to do. That means being courageous and sticking one's neck out.
As well as that, to do what is possible to give people a better and different experience. Those that you can't convince by reason you have to convince by showing them something different. That means taking the initiative and being imaginative.
Not always easy to do, and there is a personal cost involved ... but for me, doing nothing is worse.
namaste vayukesha!
(do you drive a convertible?)
I think your analysis of the situation is perceptive.
I also agree that there is a place for 'reasonable doubt'. I recently realised that my concept of sanskara was almost certainly false as it didn't make any sense. This is not say that I doubt such a thing as sanskara occurs, but there was doubt about the concept that had been formed in my mind about it. I would say this is reasonable doubt. To be able to keep going back and questioning what I think I know.
The danger seems to be that certain principles become concretised. Then they are indistinguishable from prejudice. Prejudice defined as a pre-judging of the situation. I am sure that however noble the principle, if this occurs it is a loss of consciousness. There is no longer an intelligent perception of the situation, merely a projection of some idea onto it.
In my view, the language used in post six [2.31pm] has no place in a reasonable and civilised public discussion. I have seen discussion forums disintegrate into abusive rants. I think this discourse is good and it is good that people can be open in what they say, as long as there is integrity and good intention. But we will suffer collectively if this kind of thing persists or increases.
What, for sticking my neck out of? I can't think of any other use for one.
Sanskara is I think a really troublesome concept in the School ...we are all in danger of being Glenn Hoddles, uninformed but supremely confident in our ignorance.
There's some interesting stuff about 'suspending certainty' in Simplicity Itself (the post above). For me, this has been a little light shining today. If you don't know you don't know, but that's just when the conversation starts.
Post 6 was a bit of a low-life one-off, I agree. Certainly not typical of this blog. Possibly triggered by the one above (mea culpa).
The debate is no longer 'alive' in the sense that you mention. In the early years of the School you feel that it's fresh and new - there is much to learn and discover, even an occasional revelation brings awe and thankfulness with it.
Later on, it seems that the only approved route is within the tradition. This might well be sufficient as bhakti, but isn't enough when knowledge is sought. However, a tradition insists - to a greater or lesser degree - on adherence.
I'd be the last one to advocate a 'new ageiness' for the School - it never stands the test of time. But to find yourself ticking boxes means that real enquiry 'outside the box' is never possible within the School. And who is going to find that inspiring?
Having been in the School for a number of years people don't leave because it's suddenly got too difficult. They may think they're worn down by 'duties' (subject for another post)but really it's because they've lost connection with the teaching. And if we can discover how to reignite that connection we'll have done something worthwhile.
As to this morbid scapegoating of the Kali Yuga, well, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it depresses everyone. V got it right when he said that self-examination would be a better use of it.
Re Post 6 ... I would object not so much to the mildly bad language as to the coarse and rather meaningless thought it expresses. Someone said to me the other day that in any organization you will find at the top both "political animals" and "eggheads". It seems that those with a more spiritual bent have to keep these types in check. I think that is a more intelligent assessment.
In response to what Laura is saying, I think that we need to be totally clear about the difference between adherence to a great tradition, and to a particular organization. It is not running down the School to say that it does not represent all of the tradition. Equally, it is possible to examine the School's teachings and practices and try to make them conform more nearly to that tradition.
If people are losing interest, then we must look at ourselves. What have we got wrong? That is what the School has not been good at doing. If people are not finding the School more and more rewarding, with ever-deepening knowledge, then we have certainly got our presentation of it wrong, because it's an insult to the tradition to believe anything else.
Thank you, V, for clarifying my post. There is, I think, a distinction to be made here between a tradition and areas of enquiry about which a tradition is silent.
There are also distinctions to be made between one tradition and another because, although they may ultimately have the same aim, they are not the same in practice.
For instance, the School has now primarily adopted Advaita as its guiding principle, yet there's also an Ouspensky base, plus Plato, Ficino and others.
These have been chosen because they 'tend to further....' as the I Ching might say (although Confucius does not much enter the School pantechnicon).
So I'm not sure what's meant by the tradition, as distinct from a tradition.
And what of areas where a teaching (or tradition is silent)? I was speaking to my assistant tutor a couple of days ago about this blog and she remarked that it wasn't the Socratic method. Well, the only thing that popped into mind was that Socrates didn't have the benefit of the internet.
Maybe we should start a new thread - 'Is Socrates a blogger?'
I suppose that when I'm using "tradition" I tend to mean "all of philosophy". I don't mean by that a set of answers, but the great tradition of enquiry. The only person who can really decide what is in or out of that is you.
"Socratic method"?! Since when did we take that up? I must have missed it. It would be good, though.
Someone recently told me of a guy of around 30 who was drummed out of his group for asking questions. Very good questions, apparently. This was about 5 years ago.
Laura,
We need a new post ... this one is getting ridiculously long! Help!
post six was posted by the same person as post one... and I still think it is an apt description to bear in mind because the people who SHOULD be in charge are not the people who organise the specific parts or even who oversee the actual implementation.
So who's missing? People who can see the bigger picture: the first event, last years event, this years event, next years event, and the event in 2030... etc.
If the people currently organising live in the present to the exclusion of considering how they can ensure the future then they are failing everyone coming along behind.
My comments don't mean that the current people do a 'bad job', in fact they do their current roles brilliantly, just that they are neglecting the biggest job they need to take on.
To author of posts 1, 6 and 31 ... why not adopt an alias? It would be easier to distinguish a voice.
I don't follow exactly what this means ... unless it is just an expansion of post 1. As it happens, the AinA handover seems to have been working all right, without disasters.
My intention in the main post was just to underline the general point that it had been forgotten that people need to be brought on and encouraged - not so much in Art in Action but in the School as a whole. It is now starting to happen. Maybe those people who were formerly repressed now need to wake up and start to exercise their freedom and independence.
Post a Comment