Bringing the discussion back to the central purpose of this blog, i.e. how well does the school's approach reflect the tradition? I question whether the school's approach is too intellectual. I do not suggest mushy thinking should be promoted and I think there needs to be a rigorous approach to prevent this. But I see, not just myself, but also others get turned off by material that seems to get overly wordy and complicated. In a group a while ago some material was presented about reason. The response of a lady in the group was, "this is just words". I felt she was accurate and was exercising the faculty of reason in her observation. i.e, to see the truth or falsehood in something. The explanation was not the reality of the thing. From this observation, the conversation was able to turn to something more real: what, practically and experientially, is it that knows true from untrue?
This approach is rigorous, not rigorous in trying to express an encapsulated definition accurately, but rigorous in asking, "Are these words real for me right now?" If we are to keep the flame alive, this question must be asked constantly.
The danger seems to be with an overly intellectual approach that it denies the wisdom to all but the intellectual elite (if it is in fact wisdom). There are many supremely gifted and qualified people in the school but do they speak in a way that allows universal access to the teaching? Jesus spoke in parables that could be understood by children, but which wise men could also see deep significance in. He was also known to have had the occassional dig at the learned.
Another question that can be asked: is there a subtle form of isolation going on amongst the scholars? If you use terms and words that only a minority can understand is this to mark yourself off in some way as having special knowledge that no-one else has? An intellectual code that only the intellectuals can unlock?
Sri Ramakrishna was illiterate. Sri Ramana Maharshi flunked out of school. Krishnamurti was described by one of his school teachers as being dreamy and in another world most of the time. I question whether it is a mistake to think that 'refinement of mind' has anything to do with experience of the Self. Some, in fact, say that it is a barrier.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Too Intellectual?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
An intellectual, or let us say 'scholarly', route has its merits. It has always appealed to some throughout the ages and I hesitate to say that it is necessarily a barrier for them. We need people who are willing and able to interpret the scriptures and the words of the wise -if only to ensure the rigour that Kapila speaks of.
But if the 'scholar' believes himself to be part of an elite then the barrier is already up and manned.
What seems to happen is that the scholar becomes so enamoured of his learning that he is unable to avoid spouting forth at the drop of a hat. This display is intended to impress - and does so - but not necessarily as the speaker intended.
The 'unintended effect' then comes into operation. As has been so lucidly outlined, what was intended to illuminate only succeeds in clouding and dulling - it's no longer 'alive for me'.
At a meeting (open to former members of the School) a couple of years ago, one of the speakers 'spoke in tongues' in effect - there was so much Sanscrit she might just as well have been doing so.
What was the purpose of this? The non-School guests were bewildered, it was not courteous or welcoming to say the least.
So, yes, learning can be a trap, not just for the unwary but for those who are proud of their knowledge.
I would certainly agree with what's being said here.
Laura's point about Sanskrit is also a very live one. It's just one aspect of the special language that is possessed by School members and which is used to keep us all cosy and warm - meanwhile shutting the gates to others.
But it's not just Sanskrit. What about these examples of words that sound normal, but which we use in ways that no outsider could easily understand:
bright
refined
measure
law
rest
love
the mind
activity
philosophy
The flip side of that is that when someone asks us a simple question, eg "So what do you actually do in a philosophy class?" we're usually stumped. Our private language is not transferable.
I'm glad to say that the new philosophy material is largely avoiding this kind of jargon.
Also add 'fine' to the list. Sometimes used when 'refined' would sound, even to the writer, too genteel.
You say, V, that the new philosophy material largely avoids jargon. But what about the material for more senior students? Kapila's example demonstrates very clearly that overly intellectual stuff may well be not 'alive for me'.
If this board is powered by anything (it seems to me) it's by a desire to make alive.
I would like to add to Kapila's list of wise dunces Shantananda, who was a bus driver and mechanic. Someone told me once (and I secretly hope it's true) that the other monks used to call him a name that translates as "Thicko".
I can't really get enthusiastic about calls for simpler material for Senior groups. This isn't because I disagree with the assessment, but because I think the idea of a 'senior' group with a tutor and set material is a contradiction. The format of the group practically guarantees that nobody will become senior. Except in age and outlook.
I suppose I would ask, not necessarily for simpler material, but for:
- more space
- a few deeply penetrative, terse statements
- reflection on these
- related real life experience and discussion
This would enable the essential principles to be maintained but allow some freedom of approach or expression within a group.
We have been told about the principle of a work of art taking place in space or music taking place in silence, where the space/silence is the substratum of these. The dialogue needs space and silence also, so that the words can be penetrated, deeply digested, and connected with the experience.
I think my real problem with the overly wordy approach is a kind of indigestion. There is not enough space. All the gaps have been filled in with explanation. The buddhi cannot operate.
I heard recently of a tutor trying to deliver two weeks material in one week. The group didn't even remember having attended yet even one word of what was spoken.
I wonder if we couldn't just step away from any attempt to micro manage the material and look at what a school of philosophy is for? What has it to offer? How can it best deliver the goods, as it were?
If members of the School are switching off, finding it dull, their only form of protest a departure (putting into physical form what has already happened in the mind)then it ought to be apparent that fairly radical changes are in order.
The title of this blog is 'Free the Teaching', a good title as it implies respect for the teaching while, at the same time, indicating that the teaching is not yet free.
How can it be freed? The School is an excellent vehicle but only up to a point. Would it be too revolutionary to suggest that, for senior members, weekly groups are unnecessary as presently constituted? That a regular programme of talks by speakers - such as Mr Jaiswal - might nourish more effectively? That workshops - as understood in this day and age - would be more engaging?
Mr McLaren, so I was told, once asked HH why people fell asleep in meditation. Perhaps they are tired, came the reply.
The obvious conclusion was not drawn.
To sum up my response to your question, I think that we are too pseudo-intellectual.
The School has majored not in the Way of Knowledge but in the Way of Action, as anyone can verify for themselves. As anyone who thinks will know from experience, genuine enquiry tends to be regarded by experienced tutors as something for people who haven't yet accepted "The Teaching". So far as I can see, there seems to be a kind of chippiness about learning in the School, that probably comes from it being founded by people who secretly believed that they lacked an education. On the one hand there's a desire to get educated, and on the other a fear that some intellectual will turn round and dismiss us with one flash of his rapier wit. Probably there's a lot of class envy and aspiration there too.
My own attitude to the School is divided between a feeling that it's a fantastic opportunity for enquiry (I didn't find the Great British University experience all that inspiring), and a sense of just how far we have to go to realise it.
As for genuine devotion, HH says that the devotee wakes up in the morning praising God and has no need to get out of bed or to attend a School. Imagine, if you will, the response that would get on a residential.
HE he he he he he he h.....(can't stop)......giggle giggle (puts head in hands)....
not content with getting up in the morning on residentials before one awakes, there's the delicious contemplation of lying in bed chanting sutras secure in the knowledge that HH has given his blessing.
"Psuedo-intellectual" is an interesting way of putting it. I shall contradict myself now and insist upon definitions. Laura, in her reply to this post, suggested 'scholarly' rather than intellectual. What are we really talking about here? This goes to the nub of another lingering, unresolved question for me.
People speak of 'the path of knowledge'. What is this really? If we examine the use of the word jnana/jnani as used in scripture or by gurus it doesn't seem to have anything to do with scholarship, academia etc. Sri Ramakrishna said:
"The bhakti wants to taste the sugar
the jnani wants to be the sugar"
Presumably from this, the knowledge is the knowledge of one's unity with the Absolute? This is presumably similar to the Greek gnosis which is said to be derived from the same root?
So when it is spoken of as someone being drawn to the 'way of knowledge' in defence of their attaining yet more degrees I have trouble accepting this as valid.
Sure, we need dictionaries, definitions, accurate use of language, commentaries etc to help us clear up difficulties in interpretation but all this should be seen in context. These are tools, not ends in themselves.
So, again, what really is the path of knowledge? Discriminating between what is real and unreal? Ruthlessly rejecting anything which is recognised as not being the 'real thing'?
Jnana:
"In Hinduism it means true knowledge, the knowledge that one's self atman is Ultimate Reality Brahman."
"In Buddhism, it refers to pure awareness that is free of conceptual encumbrances" !
~ Wikipedia
In defence of degrees (and I have but one, so this is not personal), you could also see it positively: someone subjecting themselves to a disciplined course of study. There's something honest and also humble about it - although obviously I take your point.
I think the distinction you are not making is between people who study for the sake of accruing qualifications, and people who study because they want to know the answers. The latter are unlikely to be satisfied by a simple formulation such as the one you've given - not because it's wrong, but because it's one thing to recite it, another to understand it, another to live it and another to explain it in terms of today. Vivekananda took 8 degrees simultaneously ... we can't be so cynical as to condemn all academic study as a waste of time.
Speaking for myself, study is both essential and enjoyable - I do it because I need to know, and I also want to know.
Yes, rigor mortis! Bored stiff!
I repent me of wit: 'rigour...rigor...a stiff...' was too exciting for a very hot afternoon. I do appreciate your contributions, gitalover, really I do.
Vayukesha said:
"The School has majored not in the Way of Knowledge but in the Way of Action, as anyone can verify for themselves."
There was a realisation here, accompanied by a certain dry and ironic humour(*), that the Way of Action is certainly the path that I'm least drawn to and feel least competent in. This explains a certain underlying pain in discussions and 'guidance' where the Way of Action is seen as the only or pre-eminent path.
(* I don't have a suitable emoticon, you'll have to imagine.)
I don't think it is seen as the only path, Kapila. Sure it isn't. Many of us find it's the easier one, perhaps the first one, that's all.
Laura
I think the point is not that it's believed to be the only path, but that it's the only one that is being followed in practice.
Are you saying that you believe it's your way, or not?
I didn't quite agree with Gitalover all the way when he said that there has to be an understanding of the technical terms ... at least by all the practitioners. I am all for the tutors having to learn these things, but it seems a bit much to insist that people who follow the Way of Action get intellectual.
I know a few people who are following this Way and who have a deep understanding of it, without necessarily having studied technical philosophy in depth. They are very impressive.
PS Here is a "wise sage" emoticon. I think he looks somewhat stern, but inwardly contented.
{%-{}}}}}===[
He looked a bit better in courier font ... maybe his wisdom was non-transferable.
Or maybe he looks better in Courier because he's the messenger?
In response to your question about whether it's my way - I'll have to think about that, I'd love to help, what would you like me to do?
Here are some links that I believe will be interested
Looks nice! Awesome content. Good job guys.
»
Post a Comment