It's been interesting to have a break from all of this for a week - firstly because very little seems to have happened, and secondly because I've found it something of a relief.
The blog has been getting fairly popular ... it's all relative I suppose but 700 visitors in July means "Free the Teaching" is, oh let's see, only about 500 times less popular than the one by that woman who details her sex life. But then I suppose the potential readership of School members is dwarfed by people who are interested in sex. There may even be some crossover there, who knows?
There have been far fewer people who have been prepared to participate - but my thanks so far to Na, Geedash, Gitalover, Son of Moses, Minerva, Kapila, Laura, and of course the ever-charming Anonymous -as well as to more occasional contributors.
My point of view has by now been fairly extensively published, and I'm not sure what else I have to offer. Perhaps it might be useful to outline the essential points. These are my personal beliefs and not intended to be authoritative statements of truth:
1. The School has not listened to His Holiness
This is the root of all our problems. We've listened to the words, but ignored the message, which is one of compassion and intelligence. This is because we wanted to hang on to our old Gurdjieffian habits - which are highly disciplined, but neither compassionate nor intelligent - instead of learning from a wiser and more venerable tradition.
2. We need to discriminate between what is customary, and what is essential
There are a lot of things about the School that do not make sense. They persist because we are sentimental about "our" way of doing things and refuse to examine it rationally.
3. We need to evolve a vision for the future
We need to do this together. In the days of Mr MacLaren it was done for us; but it no longer can or should be thus. The challenge is to dissolve the hierarchy so that we can speak as equals. Some people will mistake this for mob rule, but I would ask: is the School a mob? Or has it achieved something?
4. We have many natural friends in the world
There are many people 'out there' who are desperate for the benefits of philosophy. There are others who have significant wisdom and understanding and who could and would help the School in its endeavours. The general lack of interest in the School is not, on the whole, due to the shortcomings of others, but to our own.
5. The School is potentially the best thing in the world
I don't have any arguments to back that up, but that's what I believe and intuitively feel. Rationally speaking, there is a lot of work to do.
It would be good to hear what others think about these matters, and if anyone has other suggestions they should put them forward. This blog has always been a means to an end, and at some point it will cease to exist. Whether that's now or later depends on you.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Not Blogging
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Re: Point 3
I think it's necessary to discriminate between:
1) the need for an organisational structure to make the teaching available expediently.
2) dissolving the 'psychological' hierachy. i.e, the tendency to defend, fixate, influence, coerce, or follow, agree passively, conform etc which are barriers to a freely flowing expression/reception of truth.
For me it's becoming almost too late to wait for the big changes that you hope for. I feel that the school is not fulfilling the promise it held when I first joined. The role I have in school (that of student) does not allow me to give fully what I have to offer, nor do I feel 'free' in the school, but bound by the formalities, the expectations of certain kinds of behaviour and ways of thinking, etc. There's a big world out there....I can feel something pulling me away from the school and am holding on by very fine thread which is rapidly diminishing.
I think the key to what you're saying is your role of student. You have outgrown it. Your sense of the big world is "the big house" and you recognise that you're not a small person who has to be in a small dwelling.
I can't say that the School will change quickly enough for you. If you are at this point, however, maybe it's not a matter of "them" or "it" changing any more?
Personally I get nothing from being a student any more, but I don't want to, and can't, proceed by myself. I feel that there is a need for some kind of association with others.
If you would be interested in exploring this in a more meaningful way than is possible here, please get in touch direct.
Hi James, welcome.
Re: organizational structure
As Anonymous just said, for some of us being a student is no longer that relevant. It works when the tutor knows the something the student doesn't (Part 1 & for quite a few terms after) OR when the tutor happens to be a sage. For the moment, most tutors and students in the Senior School are on the same level - neither ignorant of the Teaching nor self-realized. And yet, the format of a group makes the tutor far more important than any of the students - he says 10 times more, has the last word on everything, has the material to read, etc.
I've been conducting some experiments with groups I'm involved in where the group sits in a circle, or a student takes the group, or the conversation becomes more free-form ... it works beautifully. It works because it more closely reflects the reality of the situation, giving people the respect they deserve.
Mr Lambie's vision is an inspiring one, but the problem is that the School does not at the moment seem to be embodying any of those principles in an exemplary way.
Truth ... the hardest part of that is to admit the truth about oneself. For the first time in 50 years the School has just apologised for something - and it had to be forced into it. That's a start, but we have a long way to go.
Justice ... Plato defines this as everything being in its right place. The group format is one example of how we have fundamental work to do.
Freedom ... how free are we to speak even in the School?
Let's look at ourselves a bit more closely before we think we can help change the world for the better.
'The role I have in school (that of student) does not allow me to give fully what I have to offer, nor do I feel 'free' in the school, but bound by the formalities, the expectations of certain kinds of behaviour and ways of thinking, etc.'
In response to Anonymous, I can sympathise fully with your comment (quoted above)as this was exactly the reason why I left the School and I suspect it is the same for many who do leave. That I returned is another story but, in any case, this discussion is probably the best bet we have of changing things for the better.
The conventionalities of School life are irksome. I think V referred to them as 'sentimental' and I also understood him to include attachment to interpretations of the teaching as well as modes of behaviour. It's been well put.
It occurred to me this morning that the long list of required behaviours and attitudes often have a link to the teaching, for example, serving others at table, but they also fulfil another function which is to give us something to do, rather like that monkey which was sent up and down a pole when it had no other useful activity.
No wonder we sometimes find them tedious. Like little goosegrass hooks they cling, rather than free. The inability to speak freely - or, in particular, be heard freely - is the antithesis of what a School should be.
We've had some discussion on this blog about the difference between 'school' and 'religion' and the difficulties that a confusion between the two can cause. If there is a requirement to believe in something then the discussion ends there, and any subsequent discussion will be about interpretation and manifestation. A study enough for a lifetime but it's not a school.
We're also speaking here of vision and it has been given. Fine words - but if 'approved' enters the lexicography, however subtly, then it's no good.
Anonymous, I can understand you wanting to kick over the traces. Who, in their right mind, would choose to feel hemmed in? Trouble is, you'll be left wandering in a green and pleasant field while the carriage goes on.
That's not to say you shouldn't do it. My analogy is probably more severe than my own experience warrants. 'Time out' is not necessarily time wasted.
You're quite right of course. But disapproval is a powerful disincentive. Where there is pressure to conform, then there will be many who fear to open their mouths and - by extension - fear others' mouths as well.
James
I suspect that if you look at your own experience, it might not be so free as you say.
I've had some very liberal tutors over the years, but free speech is about more than just saying what you want. It means, as Laura says, being listened to respectfully. Respectful listening means that you allow the other person's words to make a difference, if need be.
Someone I know has for a number of years (10?) "pressed the question" about breathing exercises which HH said should be given to those that fall asleep during meditation. Tutor after tutor has listened to this reasonable request for help (backed up by the words of the Mahapurusha, no less) without ever doing anything about it.
What is the value of free speech if it has no effect? Exactly the same as if we were talking to the wind. Or indeed, talking in our own heads.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not so cynical about speech as to avoid saying what needs to be said, but I think there is a cynicism of listening that says, "can any good come from a student?" Plainly none can come, because the tutor represents buddhi and the student manas, gathering the brute facts of experience for the tutor to sift and discriminate.
Manas, like a student, is a good servant but a poor master. He should be given a meaningless task until he gets tired and sits at the feet of the master, quietly.
There are tutors who believe free speech and questioning to be a meaningless task that will eventually wear out the student, so that he says, "Tutor, I have no more strength, just tell me the answers".
James, what you are saying is what tutors have always said: "I encourage you to speak, because that is the only way we can move forward. Your holding back - perhaps due to inner fears and imaginings - is what holds back the School."
In other words, subtly, it is mainly the fault of the student if free speech is not possible.
Are you sure about that?
Or could it be that the School's culture should take most of the blame?
Thank you to Vayukesha and Laura for your responses to my previous posting. I shall reflect on what you say. It's interesting to hear of your experiences Laura. How long did it take you to come back to the school having left? What brought you back? You don't have to reply to this; I am just curious. Many people I know who have left seem to have no intention of coming back, and say they are happier without it (some have found other groups practising advaita vedanta but in a less structured format). I suppose the school is not for everyone and each one must do what he/she feels is right for them. I myself am still undecided.
It took 15 years to return to the School. I had no intention of doing so but, in another post(in July's archives), I say something about this. It was a time of crisis and I knew - with horror - that I would have to return. Nothing had been planned that way. So much for mice and men.
It wasn't until I returned that I knew why I had left, and my participation in this blog says much about that. Perhaps I feel the weight and measure of the stakes.
It is, I feel sure, important not to slam the door behind you if you leave. If there is emotion it should be of gratitude.
Perhaps the last post I made is a bit strong. Sorry about that, James.
The reason that we don't have free speech, I think, is not because there is a wish to put people down, but because there is a desire to give discipline and structure to life. Studies of suicide have found it is most common in people who live in a free and unstructured way. It's least common in, say, orthodox Jewish communities that are circumscribed with rituals and rules, and most common in secular democratic societies where everyone is free to do and say what they want.
So there are two sides to that argument. Of course "Advaita" means "not two" - which means we look for the higher truth that resolves the apparent contradiction.
V said:
There are tutors who believe free speech and questioning to be a meaningless task that will eventually wear out the student, so that he says, "Tutor, I have no more strength, just tell me the answers".
It takes some subtlety to see what's at stake here. I agree that the questioning/enquiry must eventually subside so that one remains content with the reality that is beneath the words. But this is different to surrendering to a state of 'plasticity' wherein someone else can imprint yet more ideas. This kind of set-up seems to result in the 'talent' of being able to quote consecutive contradictory statements of little or no relevance as was discussed elsewhere. The mind has simply been 'impressed' with something, like learning something 'by heart', which is really just memory, not reason.
The following is, I believe, a better way of looking at how the enquiry might result in the mind/ego lying down before a greater light:
"A dialogue is very important. It is a form of communication in which
question and answer continue till a question is left without an answer.
Thus the question is suspended between the two persons involved in this answer and question. It is like a bud with untouched blossoms . . . If the question is left totally untouched by thought, it then has its own answer because the questioner and answerer, as persons, have disappeared. This is a form of dialogue in which investigation reaches a certain point of intensity and depth, which then has a quality that thought can never reach."
~ Krishnamurti
PS - The above quote by Krishnamurti seems to me to be similar to the Sri Ramana method. One asks, "Who Am I?", then just watches without letting the mind try to answer the question. Then even the question subsides and one just watches.
Try it!
PPS - this is another reason why the student's question must be given space and respect. Ask the question then wait, give space for the deeper intuition to penetrate the question. Not some rote answer which might possibly bore people to a state of paralysis.
From Sri Ramana:
D: Research on God has been going on from time immemorial. Has the final word been said?
M: (Keeps silence for some time)
D: (Puzzled) Should I consider Sri Bhagavan's silence as the reply to my question?
M: Yes. Mouna is Isvara svarupa. (silence is the form of God)
D: Buddha is said to have ignored such enquiries about God.
M: And, for this, he was called shunya vadin (nihilist). In fact Buddha concerned himself more with directing the seeker to realise Bliss here and now than with academic discussions about God etc.
This is rather helpful, Kapila. Thank you. You've pointed out a path.
The trouble with questions - as we have previously discussed them -is that they tend to bump up against ahankara. An individual ahankara and also a School ahankara.
It is that which crosses us.
If all questions were asked - and answered - in the way you describe, there would be no need for this discussion.
As it is, we still go on enquiring.
At the beginning of the Upanishads - the Brihad. chapter II - there are two ways suggested. First, there's the "neti, neti" - the negative intellectual way.
Then, in the next section we have Yajnyavalkya's "it is not for the sake of the husband that he is loved, my dear, but for the sake of one's own Self". This is the positive emotional way.
The problem with answers to questions that should be left to 'hang' is that the speaker is proceeding intellectually, but failing to observe the golden rule of "neti, neti". If you want to give someone an answer, then it has to come from love, and not from the intellect.
Yes, there's nothing like a bit of love to dissolve ahankara. And with dissolution the answer may actually be heard. Otherwise it's bump... ouch! ... against the ahankara again.
Of course this also applies to our own questions and answers here, our response to each other and to the School.
Post a Comment