This was originally posted as a comment here. I remarked that it would be good to hear from Katharine as a way to break down communication barriers within the School.
Thanks, Kevin. I'm not sure how valid it is for me to comment on matters within SES, now that I'm no longer a member. But I am interested in what you say about the generation gap. I think most of what I'll call the long-term people would sincerely wish to free things up, be honest, etc. But there are several factors which affect this.
For one thing, something that came to light for me after I had left: I was shocked to discover how many quite unconscious 'attitudes' to things I had, and which on inspection I didn't actually agree with at all. I became aware of a sort of faint moral disapproval in certain areas, an air of judgement, based on what I had unthinkingly taken on board as truth. It horrified me, because I hadn't even known I was harbouring such ideas. I had thought of myself as far too radical and liberal to have any truck with all that social moralising stuff. But there it was. And I realised there had been a sort of unspoken consensus among us (in my area of SES anyway) about what is and is not 'acceptable', or to put it more loftily (which is how it gets sold in the first place) what is 'in the interests of humanity' or even 'the will of the Absolute'. On closer inspection, I saw it as simply tosh, even if admittedly well-meaning. There's that Zen story - can't remember the details - which ends with the punchline, "You can never say whether something is a good thing or a bad thing," which illustrates the point perfectly.
I think I'm probably not alone in having taken on board a whole lot of unexamined stuff - mainly from Mr MacLaren, or from skewed interpretations of HH - so I think that is one reason why things take a long time to change.Secondly, something I saw quite vividly (after I got 'promoted' to becoming a sort of celebrity wife in the H Stream, which consisted almost entirely of what used to be the XYZ groups) is that there is a kind of 'cabinet responsibility' among the people who run streams, tutor groups and generally run the show. They feel they have to be 'on message', so although they may privately disagree with something, they will keep quiet out of loyalty. I know of some who feel that if they openly disagree with anything, this will mean that they will have to leave the School. They don't want to do that, so they compromise. Ultimately, it's self-betrayal - or so it seems to me. HH (I think it was him, but I could be wrong) says somewhere that once the organisation becomes more important than the truth, that's the beginning of the end.
Personally, I left after years (so many I'm ashamed) of hoping for radical reform, and concluding that it was never going to happen. I also couldn't help noticing that no-one ever seemed to attain freedom, or 'become enlightened' or whatever you want to call it. Whereas with Gangaji (who has the advantage of a) speaking English, b) being a woman, c) being fully realised, d) being available, alive, and here, e) having a degree in English (icing on the cake for me!), f) having seen all the movies I've seen, read all the books, understands and knows our culture from within, g)accepts and welcomes everyone, from whatever background, h) being very funny, humane, loving, terrifying intelligent, fierce, able to see straight through any bullshit, and totally uncompromising - phew, I'm getting carried away here...) - as I was saying, whereas with Gangaji, a great many of her students have become free, enlightened, etc. Many indeed are now teachers themselves.
I think, for what it's worth, that the School really needs to decide what it is for. I spoke to many people before I left and asked them why they stayed, given that all of them grumbled. Most said they didn't really know - perhaps for the company. That doesn't seem a good enough reason to me.
At the same time, individuals within the School impress me enormously - not least my own dear husband. I think perhaps many people are much closer to enlightenment than they realise. The trouble is, there seems to be no-one who has the authority to confirm their realisation - to say, as Gangaji does, 'Yes, yes, yes! That's it! I'm so happy for you!'
I really do hope it all works out for the School and that those who long for true freedom will find it. I wish you guys godspeed.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
From Katharine Watson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'm sure Laura won't mind me transferring this comment from its original home. - K
Katharine - I left the School seventeen years ago (after nearly twenty years)and have now been back for just over two years.
What you say rings so many bells I'm almost deafened. But not so I can't hear you. All that you relate about the School can be confirmed by many of us - it's a chief reason for the initiation of this blog in the first place.
One leaves - I would suggest - because it appears to be too tamasic to stay. The needs of the organisation - as distinct from the needs of its members - become self-perpetuating and heavy. And if anyone doubts that an organisation generates 'needs' - then look around you.
There is, of course, a good deal of baggage that accompanies School membership - unexamined because unaware or, possibly, only dimly perceived. A few weeks out in the open and that is readily apparent.
People who grumble and have no real reason for staying, except for the company, often stay out of fear. Not a good reason.
If there's a contest between staying quiet and leaving (as you've noted) many will choose the quiet path. Those who feel the School is them, and have thoroughly identified with it, will ultimately have a more difficult task.
Having said that, the School is a superb organisation in its own right. Its just that nearly everybody fears to question its precepts.
I don't know if this blog will make any difference whatsoever. None of us knows. It's satisfying, however.
Hope to hear from you again.
Thanks Katharine
What you say about your experience is very recognizable. I think the 'cabinet responsibility' thing is pretty pernicious, if it means that people are not just being politic while they change things behind the scenes, but self-censoring.
I've only recently become aware of the continuing existence of a de facto hierarchy in London, in that the H stream consists of the people who run things. I suppose the reorganization from 'levels' to 'streams' has flattened things somewhat, but it is clear that in the re-organization certain sections did not get mixed in with the general crowd, and so retain status. This also applies to the two 'youth' streams. Not being privy to the thinking behind this, it does appear that there are strong ingrained opinions as to which people are more 'conscious' than others.
In my view, elitism is a bit of a curse for the School. Nor are we free of the traditional English afflictions of classism, racism and education-ism (you can suffer for having either too little or two much - nothing worse than an intellectual, old boy!) All of these things are aspects of our culture that have infected the School. Oh, and throw in a right-leaning political bias.
In the School, self-realization is, as you suggest, an unattainable goal, a bit like finding the Holy Grail or the Snark. I'm not really clear as to what the Indians mean by it, but I suspect that we have Christianized it somewhat. I agree also that there does need to more confirmation and reassurance within the School. One of the things that I noticed about Mr Jaiswal that distinguishes him from most other respected School figures is that he is so positive about people - although he doesn't say they are self-realized.
I think that much (not all, perhaps) of the negativity one sees is just a fraudulent way of keeping status. Tutors criticise students - treating them as if they were just ahankara. Again, I think this is something from our culture - ahankara = original sin.
I'm glad you've found something that suits you better in Gangaji, and I will be interested to go and see her when she comes over, although I'm not hopeful. I don't personally have much desire to find a guru, and am very suspicious of people for whom strong claims are made - eg 'self-realized' ... Although it does seem from what you say that self-realization does not mean in Gangaji's company what it means in the School.
Kevin,
I took the opportunity of the holidays to read the fascinating article from 'What is Enlightenment' magazine that you linked to this blog a while ago. It made for really interesting reading, and was extremely critical of the neo-advaitan movement in the West (including Gangaji).
I'd be really interested to hear your perspective on the article. For myself it rang true, particularly in its critique of the idea of 'enlightenment without responsibility'.
That leads me to the next question, which Katherine's post also raises - what is enlightenment anyway?
On reflection, I have come to realise that I simply don't know. Moreover, I don't think the School knows either - or at least, if it does, it doesn't do very much to explain or promote the idea.
My feeling is that what the School is really about - and has always been about - is trying to promote justice in society. That was why the School was founded, and was the reason why courses in philosophy and the link with the Shankaracaryas were originally established.
But over the years it seems to me that that focus has become blurred and muddied. The idea shifted to developing ten enlightened men who could somehow change the world through their very being. Now even that vision of renaissance seems to have disappeared.
The School now finds itself rudderless and directionless. It neither encourages its members to participate in actions in the world that might directly help the promotion of a just society (building on the important work that has been done in understanding the Advaita philosophy and the teachings of Shantananda), nor does it directly seek enlightenment for its own sake (which, as you say, is implicitly stated to be associated with Ahankara and hence to be avoided).
So what is the School for? I'm not sure I know, and I'm not surprised that people who have given so many years of devoted service are now leaving the organisation to seek pastures new. After all, why stay in an organisation just for the sake of maintaining an organisation?
I just read the article. It seems to me a cheap trick, taking people's statments totally out of context in order to discredit them. HH referred, way back in 1965, to people becoming disillusioned and nihilist. That's what seems to have happened to the article's author.
Gangaji often refers to how words become corrupted, overused, misinterpreted etc. This is why she often says, "Forget everything I've ever said," and why she tries to use new words when she can, rather than turning something which was alive when it was first spoken into a fixed 'concept'. I think all true spiritual teachers come up against this difficulty, especially as what they 'teach' is essentially inexpressible.
None of the teachers I've met would discourage anyone from being socially or politically active, or being creative, or following whatever their heart dictates. Quite the reverse. (Nor would they ever condone cruelty or criminality.) The point, though, is that none of these activities can help you become what you already are - because you already ARE it. You are That. Not, you might become That if you work hard enough, or are good enough. You always have been That.
I agree that 'enlightenment' is a very dodgy term, along with all the other terms in current use. What I understand, however, is that it is possible, right here, right now, to awaken to the fact that you are not who you thought you were, who you identified yourself as, but something which is impossible to describe, for which there really are no words, unless one simply says "That". Not as a theory, not as a concept, not as imagination, but as an alive, real, undeniable experience. Many, many people get glimpses of this. Probably everyone who reads this blog has had glimpses. What I understand by true freedom is that one no longer contracts back into the small 'me' - which will never, and can never, by its very nature, become that freedom - but lives permanently, consciously as That, whilst carrying on all the normal activities of daily life.
I do believe this to be possible for ordinary people like us. But one of the major difficulties is that we have an idea, a picture, of what that looks like. So we think, oh, that couldn't be it! It couldn't be that simple! Also, there is the ticklish point that you have to actually WANT that, really want it, so much that the longing for it burns up everything else. And it's not in the least comfortable. Do I really want freedom? Really? Or should I just get back under the duvet?
One thing I have learned, that the School did not make clear to me. And that is that it's not about a 'state'. I always thought it was about reaching some kind of elevated state of consciousness and somehow hanging onto it as long as I could. My experience, over many years, was of attending, say, a week, and reaching a beautiful, blissful state - and then going home and after a few days thinking - oh, shit, I've lost it, I've blown it again. But now I get it - states come and go. Whatever has a beginning, must also have an end - that's just logical. States are forever changing. What I'm trying, rather clumsily, to talk about, is what is always here. Silence is always here. Stillness is always here. Consciousness is always here. Awareness is always here. I am That.
Now I think that's quite enough from me. I know from experience just how addictive this kind of website can be. And anyway, your business on this site is not my business.
So, good wishes once again to all. Over and out.
Katharine,
I don't really agree with your assessment that the author became nihilist. It seemed rather that she (and the other journalist who introduced it) had found something else that was more valuable. That was why they were still able to be humorous about it.
As to whether it's a cheap trick or not, I don't really have much experience of the people concerned. As mentioned before, I had a bit of correspondence with Tony Parsons after he or one of his tried to get the School to publicise his ideas. It seemed to me that there was not much to what he was saying - his grasp of Advaita Vedanta theory was a bit vague, and he also made a very strange statement about everyone "longing for emptiness", which sounds as nihilistic as it gets.
The other experience I had of Neo-Advaita was a friend of mine in the School who suddenly left and went off to join Ramesh Balsekar. I read some of the books he gave me about this guru (pupil of Nisargadatta) and I found his extreme view of Advaita very disturbing. For example he would equate Adolf Hitler with Mother Teresa - there is no difference from the standpoint of Advaita. I tried to debate the point with him, but it was no use. So far as my friend went, it now appears to me that he was indeed overdosing on spiritual heroin. Later he sent me what appeared to be some drivel from Wayne Liquorman, disciple of Ramesh and a second member of the "Neo-Advaita" skit referred to by James.
I did some research today and, surprise surprise, it appears Ramesh has been caught with his pants down and fingers in the till ... if you are interested in the sad tale, visit
http://www.inner-quest.org/Real_Advaita.htm
By their fruits shall ye know them ... and what I know now about Ramesh is that he is just an ordinary person with few moral scruples and a good line in Advaita-speak.
Thanks for your contributions to date, Katharine. I hope you continue to participate, because in several months running this site it's been almost impossible to get past the 'School Cool' front put on by senior people. This involves ignoring whatever anyone says that involves tricky questions.
Yes indeed - they do not appear to know that it's a fool who plays it cool by making the world a little colder.
So, it would be good to hear from you again. Or you could recommend that others make a few contributions?
James
I hope the above answers your question as to my view of the article. As for Gangaji, I don't know anything about her. Some of what she says seems good.
As for enlightenment and the purpose of the School, I'm not sure I'm totally with you there, although I see what you're saying and agree with much of it. The original purpose was so far as I understand to teach about truth, justice and freedom. The Gurdjieff-Ouspensky method was followed until the 1960s, since when it has gradually faded out and been replaced by Advaita Vedanta. As I've made clear elsewhere, I don't think that this process has yet gone far enough. I think the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky sunglasses need to come off.
Having said that, I have my own story of involvement in the School. Next week I will have been attending for 20 years exactly. I will always be grateful to the School for being a place where vital questions are raised and can be explored with others. Again, I think there is more to do to so that the questioning may continue to go deeper. I have become stymied over the years by the realization that for many people the enquiry is really supposed to end in acceptance of certain facts, but at the same time I haven't let myself become bogged down in that nonsense.
For me, philosophy is a wonderful search, the best thing that anyone can do. Many years ago I stopped idealising the School, but I have not lost the idealism that the School gave me.
Re: comments about Gangaji and Ramesh Balsekar
I know nothing about either of these teachers but it does seem strange, shortly after insisting upon the scientific method, to accept second or third hand accounts as 'truth'. What happened to primary observation? This is just 'celebrity gossip'.
Kapila,
I don't have any idea what you mean about celebrity gossip, and I would ask you to retract that remark (obviously directed at me) unless you are going to present evidence to back it up.
I said nothing unsubstantiated about Gangaji - as I mentioned at least twice I don't have any knowledge of her.
As for Ramesh Balsekar, if you trouble to read the article there are numerous testimonies, including that of his follower Wayne Liquorman who does not deny that Ramesh has been misbehaving, but only asserts that it doesn't matter how he behaves because he is self-realized. That statement alone was enough for me, given that I had read Ramesh's work already and formed my own suspicions about it.
Throughout my comments on Tony Parsons I make clear where my information is coming from - personal correspondence with him.
This is not a scientific experiment and I have not insisted on scientific method, in blogging or in life. It would be ridiculous to do so.
This may just be an off the cuff remark, but at the moment it appears to be as offensive as it is inaccurate.
Ok, firstly apologies if any offence was caused. The comment was intended to be cutting but humorous. Secondly, it wasn't specifically aimed at you Kevin. James also commented on the Gangaji article about 'enlightenment without responsibility', then confessed to having no real idea what enlightenment was anyway...
I don't wish to form an opinion about anyone from 2nd and 3rd hand information. All people, us and those giving the testimony are capable of their own bias, misunderstanding etc.
The more fundamental point here is: when I joined the school, the emphasis seemed to be to do with dropping accumulated opinions about things and meeting the present, and people as if for the first time etc. This is what I mean by primary observation and it relates back to the point about science and epistemology with regard to what is valid knowledge.
The only people who need concern themselves with the testimony about these teachers are their followers.
Peace
Kevin said (comment 2):
"Tutors criticise students - treating them as if they were just ahankara."
Well I think we need to be careful of over-generalisation but the above does reverberate with something that I've been with for a while now. I think we have been told somewhere that you give power and reality to the things you direct the mind to? If people are seeing 'just ahankara' then their world is 'just ahankara'. In observing myself, there are times when all I can see are my faults (plenty to see) or I can just refuse to give power to that and endeavour to just drop the thoughts. So why give ahankara validity and reality at all by either supporting it or attacking it? Should we not avoid indulging or repressing but just observe without involvement and thereby see through it?
Kapila,
OK peace ... I don't mind you being cutting if you want, but I still think it wasn't accurate.
I don't think that the issue of 'rival' Advaitins is at all irrelevant. Lots of people are going along to the Chinmaya organization (which I hear is great). Gangaji has been strongly touted here on this site. Others are going to Tony Parsons, Ramesh, etc etc. So these people have been introduced here by others (including their followers), and in School one often hears people talking approvingly of the Neo-Advaitins.
James was asking a question, and I don't think he's wrong to do so while also expressing the opinion that something rings true.
A scientist carrying out an experiment will, it is true, use first hand data, but 99.9% of science is second or third hand - it has to be, otherwise all scientists would have to carry out all experiments personally. There are naturally less stringent approaches outside of science.
99.9999% of our information is hearsay. That's fine, so long as we know it is.
My feeling is that, if you really believe that the Self is the most precious possession that you've been given, earned, or been loaned, you should be ruthless in its protection and service. If there's a promising organisation someone's told you about, try it. If it doesn't provide what you feel you need, leave it or as Laura did, take a refreshment break. If you think you can improve it, make a lot of noise about it. It claims to be there for your benefit -- use it to the hilt, take what you approve of, reject what you don't.
If people aren't getting anything out of it, it's likely that they're not putting anything into it either, just politely marking time.
Be ruthless for self -- you owe it to yourself.
I'm a simple soul, and I have a simple test for liberation, enlightenment, self-fulfilment, wisdom, love, whatever -- are people glad to see you, talk with you, be with you ?
Anonymous,
Are you really a simple soul? You said, "My feeling is that, if you really believe that the Self is the most precious possession that you've been given, earned, or been loaned, you should be ruthless in its protection and service."
So if the Self has been given, earned or been loaned, who to? And from whom? It sounds more like there are at least 3 entities here - "you" "the Self" and the unspecified donor or loaner. Whaaa?!?
Seems like your inner world is a crowded place. ;-)
That apart, I do agree with the broader point about choosing one's own path, and also your test sounds very sensible.
PS you might want to adopt an alias ... so many anonymous voices.
Post a Comment