Ours used to be a Christian society. As such its ultimate aim was to serve God and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Many, perhaps most, people nowadays have abandoned such an understanding of life’s purpose, and indeed in former ages it was often followed in rigid and limited ways. As a society we nowadays tend to concern ourselves instead with the pursuit of such secondary aims as technological advance, material prosperity and (generally) low level entertainment. With the general mind thus pre-occupied the very question of an ultimate aim is often forgotten.
There is no space here to trace the process by which this change has taken place. I believe this is part of what Kevin has been lecturing on, and I hope that in due course he might share his discoveries with those of us who live far from Brighton (in fact, I wonder if this blog could have a facility whereby fuller submissions might be filed, such as his talks. This would not be too difficult to rig up, would it?).
Over the last three or four centuries ‘Enlightenment’ values have removed religion from its central place in society’s agenda, and replaced it with such endeavours as a quest for secular knowledge as revealed by science. ... click "Read more"
Under the heady influence of this new knowledge, men began to dream of an earthly paradise to be attained through the destruction of inhibiting tradition and by political revolution. The obvious failure of this project, however, by the end of the twentieth century, has left the West somewhat demoralized and uncertain as to how to proceed.
Now before Laura berates me further, I know there have been incredible advances over the last few centuries in areas such as free enquiry etc., without which we would never have been able to hear the teachings of the East etc. So I am not just looking back to a rose-tinted past, but just as much towards a fresh and exciting future.
All this is by way of prelude to a question which I believe avoids the dismal view of history so irritating to K and L, and can therefore be addressed by all of us.
Is it possible for our ‘liberated’ age, or for that matter any other age, to find stability and direction in any other way than through reference to a ‘sacred order’ of some sort?
And, necessarily following on from this: if it is not possible so to find stability, and I think we would probably all agree to some version of such a view, from where would such a vision of ‘sacred order’ come, and, having ascertained such a vision, how could people be enticed to entrust their faith and hope in it?
I only add a few notes on the wording of the main question.
Liberated: this has its positive and negative aspects. We have indeed been liberated from stifling dogma, but also liberated to some degree into a state of rootless individuality.
Stability: traditional forms are rapidly dissolving. Pertinent to the above question, I believe, is an examination into what new social forms can be found that would offer such social goods as; 1) continuity, 2) freedom for personal development and self-discovery, 3) protection for the deprived and ‘challenged', 4) mitigation of crime, 5) protection from malevolent foes, 6) a suitable education (geared among other things to the preservation of the new values), and 7) a measure of prosperity.
Sacred order: this would be a vision having the authority that can only be invested by a higher source, whether this be a faculty of reason in each of us, an embodiment in spiritual teachers, or, as has so often been the case throughout history, a form of sacred words revered and accepted by all.
What are your thoughts on all this?
4 comments:
SOM
I've taken out some rogue HTML tags in your posting. Also have labelled it "Philosophical Questions" - this to distinguish it from questions on School principle and practice.
I would answer your question, "probably not".
Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" (which I've mentioned a few times before) is a recent book by a psychologist which attempts to integrate ancient wisdom and modern science.
In one section he speaks about three "ethics" that motivate us: the ethic of autonomy, the ethic of community, and the ethic of the sacred. Although he himself is (he concedes) part of a liberal community favouring autonomy, he concludes that the ethic of the sacred is essential. He says that such is the evidence of modern psychology.
He might grate on your right-wing, Melanie-Phillips-loving sensibilities, but if you can get past that, you might find that there are more people who agree with you than you think.
I just believe that the sacred of the future is going to look very different to that of the past.
I'm not that keen to publish the talks here, partly because the ideas are still developing and there is a lot of potential for misunderstanding in written communication. I suppose that what I'm finding agrees with your analysis that we are moving from God to self, and that it all turns on what kind of self. The problem with modernity is that it is so disturbing and distracting - my question is whether we can see this as a challenge and sift out the positive aspects. Given that it is not going to go away, I'm not sure we have any other reasonable option.
We had a talk last Tuesday (6th Feb) at Mandeville place by Mr Sarosh, an ex-member of the school who is now president of Religions for Peace (Europe). The RfP organisation facilitates dialogue between religious groups. Their aim is not theological debate but practical action. No-one is allowed to attempt to ‘convert’ another to his belief, but they endeavour agree a common aim, then the leaders of the respective groups cascade this information down through their communities. The RfP described their ideal as “a community of communities”. This would seem to me to be a more immediately workable option than an all-embracing, utopian system. It would allow for unity of purpose, mutual respect, but differences in belief and approach.
Interestingly, one of the quotes from the presentation that stays with me was from the Koran:
“There can be no compulsion in religion”.
Link for RfP:
http://www.religionsforpeace.net/Europe/
These are questions which those of us with high hopes of the benefit such a school could bring to society, have held or should hold every minute of the day (approx...)
Advaita would say, surely, tell anyone who would listen, the tried and tested truth; tell them not to accept it or reject it but to test it for themselves; then if it works for them they'll come back for more...this was how Pythagoras started up his great school, we're told...
Somewhere in his early conversations, HH says we should be publishing short statements of what is on offer. So far, this only seems to have surfaced in the posters that go up three times a year. Question : how could this be followed up ?
There are several world organisations now teaching some degree of self realisation/liberation based on Ramana Maharshi's famous question, 'Who am I ?'
If this leads, as it seems to do, to the understanding that,as Advaita teaches, the self is blissful by its own nature, and that bliss is not a product of action and its result -- then this would act as a leaven throughout society and sort out those social problems which seem so insuperable ?
The first principle for an audience for truth, Hinduism tells us, is that mankind should be adequately housed, adequately clothed, and adequately fed...
If every street child who now sleeps in the sewers could be encouraged to prove the truth of the teachings to themselves, among others who also had proved this to themselves, and if they were given the 'role model' of sanatana dharma to follow, we'd be well on the way to that golden age whose exact date seems to be currently in question ! (I'm told there are indeed such teachers now.)
Post a Comment