The following might relate to some of the recent discussions on how to effect change.
I recently spoke to a lady – let’s says she’s in the London School – who has a great problem when she goes on residentials. She’s an environmentalist, and she’s horrified by what she sees at School properties. Minimal recycling, widespread and indiscriminate use of chemical sprays and fluids, low-energy light bulbs nowhere to be seen, coal-burning fires blazing on a warm day … she says “it hits me in the solar plexus”. She can hardly bear to be on a weekend, let alone a week, because it conflicts so much with her way of life and her ideals.
She has been told repeatedly that she has to surrender this agitation. In a sense, this is merely the traditional School view. If there is agitation, it must be coming from ahankara: therefore surrender. Unfortunately, this tradition contradicts the Shankaracharya as well as reason. His Holiness does indeed recommend surrender if there is agitation, but he also says that having surrendered the agitation we should do something about what caused it. To use an extreme example, I might feel agitated if I saw a man about to murder a child; I have to collect myself, and then act to stop him.
I said to this lady that she must write to the authorities within the School and explain her views. She will never find peace until she does so, because to do nothing is to condone a wrong. Environmental concern is not only in accord with the principles of our philosophy and economics; it is central to it. Within the Indian tradition, the spiritual journey corresponds to a lessening of environmental damage as life proceeds. Eventually the forest-dweller and the sannyasin reduce desire to the point where the consequence of his existence is almost nil. Our present practices ignore this aspect of the teaching, and so this is an opportunity to evolve the School.
'Surrender the agitation' is partial truth, a dangerous thing. “One cannot simply put a stop to the stream of life”, says His Holiness. The way forward for the individual as well as for all, is to direct the stream into its rightful channel. We need to learn the importance of speaking up for what's right.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Reduce the Damage, Not the Student
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Here! Here! There's 'ahimsa', meaning 'no harm' and the School has half taken that on board, but has got stuck in the 'economic' field where ahimsa runs up against 'plenty for all'.
At Mandeville we were told this term that 'we're going green' and are now enjoined to put out the lights when we leave a room - as much to save electricity bills as anything. But there was also a environmental element to it.
However, the School is just following trends in this respect. It could be a leader. Are we putting up solar panels and wind-vanes? (Now available from B&Q.)Recycling is virtually mandatory for the rest of us - why not the School? Low-energy light-bulbs are cost-effective. These are all very basic measures - or will be soon.
And what about heat-transference? I'm investigating one of those for my earth-floored cellar. Now that would be a marvellous project for residentials, giving plenty of opportunities for getting down and dirty, digging out a great hole in the garden.
Does the leader of the School have a new- generation Toyota? The kind that runs on an electricity battery topped up by petrol and doing 50 m.p.h? Bio-fuels anyone?
I'll believe we're serious about caring for the environment when the School charters buses to take us to residentials, rather than everyone charging up the motorway in their own polluting cars. But given that School members are as wedded to their cars as anyone else I'll believe we're on the way when we take other significant measures to tread lightly.
Also, if we need refer to another principle, HH says in Good Company, "stealing is taking more than you need". Many practises could be examined with reference to this.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9558-2395643,00.html
This Times Online Money question and answer article came in this morning - tells most of what you need to know about energy saving and renewable technologies, and gives onward telephone numbers.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8214-2379449,00.html
And here - at the moment -it seems to be thumbs up for solar and voltaic panels, no for wind turbines, and possibilities for ground source heat pumps which, although expensive, do the business.
I think this is another nice example of 'times change'. Large organisations get built-in tamas.
Better to see oneself always as the 'conscience of the School' and pass on whatever ideas or observations one has. Otherwise they can fester...
I like the idea of leading, not following, in matters of good sense. It would help to dispel that 'Oh, somebody is in charge of those matters' response which may be familiar to some..?
Agreed. However, I wonder whether being "the conscience" is at the end of the day enough.
There are plenty of organizations that function effectively; and plenty that fail to function due to tamas. I think there is a difference between those two: and it is not that one has better people than the other, necessarily. The same people, given different leadership and stimulus, will be either effective or ineffective.
We need conscience, of course. But we also need to rethink how the organization should work today, based on principle. That is what Mr MacLaren did. We should follow his example of free thought, rather than slavishly obey his orders. That is the real service done to the old by the young.
Yes, we so often come back to this 'somebody else is in charge' question. It cuts out a lot of agitation but doesn't really serve.
If it's a matter of principle, we have that a-plenty as regards caring for this world and all that lives in it.
We can stand on that principle and lead in practice. It will be happier that way.
Post a Comment