The other day I saw some results of a survey of early-part philosophy students. Without revealing anything confidential, it was pleasing to see how positive people are about the course and the tutors.
I reflected that I would have wholeheartedly agreed with them when I was at that stage in the School - for example, that the tutoring was inspirational; sadly however, I can't say that I feel that way now. I would now be far more likely to agree with the very few negative comments.
This is not a comment on any one tutor, but on my own needs as a student. What was once compelling is no longer so, not because the tutors have got worse but because the group set-up no longer addresses what I need. It has done its job, I believe, and moved me on to a stage where I can and do decide things for myself. If being tutored is a "thorn to remove a thorn", I have been saying for quite a few years "honestly, the thorn is out - can I please not be poked any more?" I am not, of course, saying that I have reached any pinnacle of enlightenment; just that no-one else can take me any further. Unfortunately the School has no way of dealing with this eventuality.
The problem that now faces the School is not getting new students in, but revitalizing the existing ones. When the senior people in the School get their 'zing' back, we won't have any problem with recruitment. No matter how much variety is introduced into study days and weekends and group nights, it won't ultimately help. People are bored not by what is being given to them, but by being given things.
This is why I stay: because it has become once again a place where I can do spiritual work. I am responsible for a group of students, and also engage in a number of other activities that are challenging, rewarding and (I believe) of use to others. I don't have to pretend to be someone else, or kowtow to anyone: it is a place where I can discover myself, and be myself, and be connected to the self in others.
It would not be difficult to bring about a change so that others could find the same benefit, if only the nature of the ailment were understood.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Zing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
Dear Kevin,
You say,
‘When the senior people in the School get their 'zing' back, we won't have any problem with recruitment. No matter how much variety is introduced into study days and weekends and group nights, it won't ultimately help.’
I completely agree with every word, but how do the complacent overcome complacency if they are complacent? People would have to become willing to rethink their lives, to stop thinking they’re as good as ‘there’, or that ‘there’s nothing to do’ or that the School will somehow do it for them.
I have studied many spiritual movements with their history and achievements and it is very obvious that those which have appeared to ‘succeed’ and to liberate their adherents, as well as leaving brilliant legacies to pass down the ages, have worked with very great intensity.
I think His Holiness said it all when he spoke of the ‘leisurely approach’. This, I humbly submit, is what dulls the zing.
Ah, but perhaps leisure gives the space to zing? Didn't the Greeks count leisure one of the highest blessings, giving the opportunity for zing?
It's the sometimes endless round of activities that can become dulling. All work and no play....
Complacency is just another word for dullness, and just as difficult to deal with if taken head-on.
I, too, have seen the preliminary results of the survey of first-year students. It was both encouraging and discouraging.
Encouraging for the reasons Kevin has given, but discouraging because some of the questions were unintentionally biased.
For instance, if people are asked if something is 'helpful', and to rank it accordingly (even though allowing for an 'unhelpful'answer), they will be inclined to be more positive than if they were asked at the beginning if something is 'helpful' or 'unhelpful' which is a more neutral question.
In other words, most people want to please, but you don't get the truth that way.
I find it more interesting to study what individuals actually do and then ask them about it in an indirect way. More subtle.
People will often tell you more about their motivation and desires by NOT being asked directly, but by being asked about their attitudes and feelings which can then be linked with the question behind the question.
The questionnaire, and its answers, did not tell me anything new or particularly revealing.
Laura, I suppose it has confirmed that people are generally very happy with their experience. As I've said, I don't think the pressing issue is part 1 recruitment, because people in part 1 (as has often been noted) are usually a lot happier with the School than people in part 62. Zingier.
Of course the tutors and assistants are usually pretty zingy too.
An averagely intelligent person will eventually twig that they ought not to be looking at the tutors, but at the more senior students, to see what staying in the School means.
Son of Moses,
I think the answer is that you don't have to wake everyone up to start the waking up. If one person wakes up, that starts to create a refreshing ripple.
Complacency may be what you see around you. Looking at the people in my stream (aged 30-45), however, complacent is not the word I would use. There are one or two like that - social climbers mostly - but I think most people are rather uneasy about things at the moment. I would say that the most common stumbling block in their way is fear of the unknown.
Remember that this has been fostered for many years: "there is a protection within the School". Consider the phrase "in the world" and all that that implies.
It's true that there is a protection there, for those that need protection. There are many others who should long ago have taken a decision to stand up for themselves. That they did not means that they have missed the boat, or as someone once said:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
For someone in that predicament, maybe complacency is the only fig-leaf remaining?
Kevin said:
"No matter how much variety is introduced into study days and weekends and group nights, it won't ultimately help. People are bored not by what is being given to them, but by being given things."
Nicely put. Again, what is service? The loss of zing is in losing the sense of enquiry and being fed things that you don’t really need at that time. Then it becomes stale, or perhaps in ayurvedic terms, the food that you eat when you’re not hungry turns to poison?
What is the need? That which arises out of the genuine question (the genuine hunger)? Sometimes it takes a break from the school, like Easter holiday to find enough space to allow the real questions to arise again. i.e. digestion has taken place you’re actually hungry again.
There seems to be a natural law here like the metaphor of hunger, eating, digestion... Suggested order of causality:
- Student is hungry (has genuine question)
- Student eats (asks a question of the tutor or into the ether)
- receives nourishment (receives answer from tutor / book / intuition / life – “The mark of wisdom is to discern the truth from whatever source it is heard” ~Thiruvallavar)
- digests food (silence, rest, non-doing – a comparatively long time compared to chewing, swallowing?)
- hunger is allowed to arise naturally as and when it will
I reckon the ‘zing’ occurs when the genuine question arises from hunger. I believe this to be the reason why the early parts of the school are more alive. The questions are more alive. No-one has been institutionalised. It is the non-standard questions that keep the tutors awake. Or, perhaps more radically, when there is a genuine question, the Absolute Himself answers it through whatever instrument he pleases. The instrument receives incidental benefit in the exchange (if he understands what he just said!).
Kapila said ...
"There seems to be a natural law here like the metaphor of hunger, eating, digestion ... Suggested order of causality: ..."
... repeating endlessly until such time that the student gets thoroughly 'fed up' (pun intended) with this "mental preoccupation with causality" and realises that there is no progressive path - at which point the real work begins. Zing doesn't even begin to describe what happens next!
"As long as there is mental preoccupation with causality, so long does the worldy state continue. When the engrossment with causality is exhausted, one does not attain the worldly state".
(Mandukya Upanishad IV.56)
Kapila,
I think I agree with your general picture. Rudi has picked up on the word "causality", but I don't think he needed to take you to task for it. If you had said, "suggested order of occurrence" then it would not change what you are saying significantly.
Rudi,
I agree with you that there is ultimately (which does not only mean "later", as you have said before but "in the final analysis") not this chain of cause and effect, but what is being said is that people arrive in the School enthusiastic, continue for a while still enthusiastic, and later appear not to be enthusiastic. If you are saying that the whole problem is that what is being taught is wrong, then why do people get something out of it initially?
My explanation for that is that the food provided in the early years is right for people at that stage, and a different kind later; whereas what you say is that one kind of food should be provided always and in all circumstances.
NB What you are quoting is not the Mandukya Upanishad but Gaudapada's extensive verse commentary (Karika). Gaudapada seems to be the founder of Advaita, but Radhakrishnan is rather critical of this early form of the philosophy, which is basically adapted slightly from Shunyata Buddhism, and he notes the important changes that Shankara made. Most importantly, he notes that according to Gaudapada, it is the Brahman that is under the illusion, whereas this is anathema to Shankara.
According to Deussen (Philosophy of the Upanishads, p 30) "Shankara treats this [the Mandukya] and Gaudapada's Karika as one, and seems to regard the whole as in no sense an Upanishad vedanta-artha-sara-sangraha-bhutam idam prakarana-chatushtayam 'om iti etad aksharam' ityadi arabhyate; and with this would agree that the Mandukya is not quoted either in the Brahmasutras or in Shankara's commentary on them" (I would be interested if someone could translate the Sanskrit here).
The Buddhist view is a negative one - because there is nothing meaningful to say about God, self, ultimate being, nirvana, then we should say nothing. It proceeds by negation. Advaita Vedanta has not only the negative, intellectual approach, but also includes a positive approach that includes "lower knowledge".
The Mundaka Upanishad, for example, says that lower knowledge is an essential step towards the higher knowledge. This message is repeated all through the Upanishads and in the Conversations. What you are offering is the Buddhist critique of traditional Indian philosophy -ie "why go through all this preliminary, since it's all one in the end?"
No-one is questioning that higher knowledge supersedes the lower, but speaking for myself I feel that it is not a logical step to therefore jettison lower knowledge, as you appear to do. It may be all one ultimately, but that is not how it appears until the ultimate is reached.
Shantananda says that different teaching is appropriate for people at different stages of development, and I think that anyone with his eyes open can observe that for himself.
Whether the School has got this balance right is the topic I've addressed in the main post, and in many others over the past year.
Hello Rudi
Is there a causal relationship between my comment and your response to it?
Following up on the questionnaire, it works in more than one way - it can beg questions of the early part of the School's teaching - as the current one is intended to do - and it also shines light on those who ask the questions.
If questions are asked, for which the answers are already known, then the results will already be known (in all probability). Thus there will be nothing fresh to illuminate the situation.
As I understand it, the questionnaire was largely prompted by a desire to find out why so few Part 1 people continue to the end of Part 3. Part 1 is billed as a stand-alone course, so there may be nothing odd in people saying they've enjoyed it - but that's enough.
Those who have left are going to be asked why they did so - and perhaps those results will be more revealing.
But, again, there is this desire to please which bedevils an enquiry like this.
This first-year survey has wider implications than are limited to the first year.
'I reckon the ‘zing’ occurs when the genuine question arises from hunger. I believe this to be the reason why the early parts of the school are more alive. The questions are more alive. No-one has been institutionalised.'
I was just thinking the same thing about 'food' as Kapila this morning. If someone isn't hungry then the food does seem like poison or, at any rate, it can be put back in the fridge for another time.
We should be careful of this - too many 'reminders' can satiate. They say that water can wear away a stone, and no doubt it's true but human beings are not stones.
Laura,
Just would like to raise the possibility that some of the information in the survey might be sensitive.
Yes, sure, K, that's why I'm skirting and being very general. But if it's a bit close to the quick I'll desist. However, there are no names, and I was exploring process and approach.
When I look around the senior groups, I think I see sometimes a lack of enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity, co-existing with great efficiency in action, almost as if that were a relief...
It seems as if we're missing some clue about the way to move forward, for those who have been given so much -- as if we haven't taken on the individual responsibility to now give out in the same measure; and don't know how to go about it..as if we haven't found an individual identity within the corporate identity... and sometimes are quite content to feel 'corporate safe' and not to stick our noses out into the world and enter it, not as teachers, but as extremely well-balanced 'ordinary' people... a sort of confident humility... any bells rung there ?
Kevin said...
"... what is being said is that people arrive in the School enthusiastic, continue for a while still enthusiastic, and later appear not to be enthusiastic. If you are saying that the whole problem is that what is being taught is wrong, then why do people get something out of it initially?"
Exactly - 'initially'. Until the frantic search for the spectacles (to use that metaphor), i.e. the path interpretation, takes its toll. The hallmark of pathless Truth is that it is deep, permanent and lasting.
"My explanation for that is that the food provided in the early years is right for people at that stage, and a different kind later; whereas what you say is that one kind of food should be provided always and in all circumstances".
Once more: the ONLY generalisation I have ever made is that if there is no path to liberation, as a matter of fact, then this would necessarily apply to all people.
I have NO VIEWS WHATSOEVER on the question of 'what food' should be provided, or what individuals should do etc. The very notion of 'should' is, by its very nature, prescriptive, and implies a 'right way' of doing things, i.e. a path - the VERY thing I keep saying doesn't exist. In other words, I am saying the exact opposite of what you seem to think I am saying.
I quoted... Mandukya Up IV.56: "As long as there is mental preoccupation with causality, so long does the worldy state continue. When the engrossment with causality is exhausted, one does not attain the worldly state".
Kevin commented...
"What you are quoting is not the Mandukya Upanishad but Gaudapada's ... Karika. Gaudapada seems to be the founder of Advaita, but Radhakrishnan is rather critical of this early form of the philosophy ... adapted slightly from Shunyata Buddhism ... he notes the important changes that Shankara made. Most importantly ... according to Gaudapada, it is the Brahman that is under the illusion, whereas this is anathema to Shankara. According to Deussen "Shankara ... seems to regard the whole as in no sense an Upanishad ... with this would agree that the Mandukya is not quoted either in the Brahmasutras or in Shankara's commentary on them ...". The Buddhist view is a negative one ... " etc etc
I am at a complete loss as to why we need to explore the origins of Gaudapada's philosophy, Sri Radhakrishnan's views on it and all the other stuff you are suggesting, in order to establish where Shankara stands on Gaudapada's view of 'causality'. Why not simply read Shankara's commentary on verse IV.56? He wholeheartedly concurs with Gaudapada.
A beautiful example of what amazingly great lengths the mind is prepared to go to to find an alternative answer if it doesn't like the one that stares it in the face; the entire concept of a progressive spiritual path is equally an avoidance of what is right in front.
"... lower knowledge is an essential step towards the higher knowledge ... this message is repeated all through the Upanishads and in the Conversations ... and I think that anyone with his eyes open can observe that for himself"
No. Both the Upanishads and the Conversations specifically say that this is NOT how it works. This is only how the mind, "preoccupied with causality", misinterprets the teaching. Shantananda specifically warns against interpreting his teaching in this way, i.e. turning his descriptions into anything sequential, i.e. a path.
There are 'eyes' defined as 'open' by a 'mind preoccupied with causality'; and then there is that which Shantananda is trying to open our eyes to:
"... these [descriptions] are only to explain what the creation is. In fact, it is, as we all know, only illusion, for it is all the imagination of the Absolute".
"When the subtle course of imagination fails ... then the physical is substituted so that the knowledge may be imparted ... All these manifestations are immaterial, and what matters is knowledge. This knowledge is again wrapped up in such a way that children may understand. All these pictures of creation are not real ... more like a dream. Whatever we see in a dream is seen to be an illusion when one wakes up ... All our search for knowledge is only to get a direction in order to see that all this is illusion; and the way is not get attached to it. Where is the sequence in illusion?"
Kapila said...
"Is there a causal relationship between my comment and your response to it?"
Of course not. To read a causal relationship into consecutive events, on the basis that one follows the other, is like arguing that events on page 42 of a book cause the events on page 43. In fact, everything only 'happens' in the imagination of the author. Similarly, 'events' in creation only appear causally related because of "the mind's preoccupation with causality", whereas, "in fact, (creation) is, as we all know, only illusion, ... the imagination of the Absolute, ... (and) where is the sequence in illusion?" (1965 Conversations, p.76)
And no, this is not only 'ultimately' so, or 'in the final analysis', or after step 7 or 9 or whatever has been taken, but NOW and always:
"When someone asks
what there is to do,
light the candle in their hand".
-Rumi
Hi Rudi
For someone who never says "should" you use a lot of capital letters. Why so emotional?
OK, we've heard your views repeatedly - we do get the point.
But why is what you say so different to what the Upanishads say - ie you say "there's only one truth and everything else is irrelevant and false and anyone who says anything else is ignorant";
what they say is "there's only one truth, but lower knowledge is important first, although it's later invalid".
These are different, are they not?
I'm suspicious of the terms 'lower knowledge' and 'higher knowledge' as potentially leading to duality in thinking and School attitudes of superiority, if one takes them as two entities. (Maybe that's my problem, not yours ?)
Self-realisation is a continuous process of the refinement of knowledge ? So maybe there's not a useful comparison to be made between 'zing' in early groups, and 'listening with a relaxed face' (ha ha) in later groups ?
I have as much enthusiasm as ever, maybe more, especially if it's taken as some aver, as 'the god within' in Greek.. I'd hope it's in the shining eyes of my fellow students rather than their facial lines and sag... the later groups may be better than we fear. Though there's more listening than discussion...
And of course we see our fellow students in the evening, often tired from the buffetings of the day... we don't see them in their 'common life' context, here they may be shining beacons of consciousness...
But this isn't to deny my last night's comments about finding a role for ourselves 'out there'.
Kapila said...
"Is there a causal relationship between my comment and your response to it?"
Rudi said:
Of course not. "...where is the sequence in illusion?" (quotes H.H)
Would the response have occurred without the initial comment? If the response was equally as illusory as the initial comment, why bother? Were all the questions and answers between disciples and teachers throughout history futile?
This probably sounds like 'sophist'-icated nonsense to others. Perhaps it is. Perhaps, like the earlier Nisargadatta excerpt we have to get to the point of finding the argument, discussion etc so utterly tedious that the mind gives up & comes to rest. Well this has been experienced, repeatedly, yet something still arises again and again. No doubt if I ask why this occurs it will be further evidence that I am preoccupied with causality. But I don’t think the actual question is ‘why’ this occurs. The enquiry is the endeavour to bring a (causal?) mechanism into the light and thereby have a chance of being free of it.
Illusory, non-causal 'responses' welcome. Please send them on a non-existent postcard to arrive last Wednesday. ;)
Kevin said ...
"For someone who never says "should" you use a lot of capital letters. Why so emotional?"
I use capitals for emphasis, not as an expression of emotion (nor do I see a contradiction between having emotions and saying 'there is no path to liberation').
"OK, we've heard your views repeatedly - we do get the point."
I wish ... :-)
"But why is what you say so different to what the Upanishads say - ie you say "there's only one truth and everything else is irrelevant and false and anyone who says anything else is ignorant". What they say is "there's only one truth, but lower knowledge is important first, although it's later invalid". These are different, are they not?"
What I say is not different to what the scriptures say, just different to your interpretation of them.
'Lower knowledge' refers to descriptions of that which is beyond description. Ergo, descriptions are ALWAYS invalid, not only 'later'. They are meant to awaken our 'failed subtle imagination' (to use Shantananda's words), and it is this awakening and only the awakening that is valid ("all these manifestations are immaterial, and what matters is knowledge").
To believe that descriptions have any validity in their own right is childish ("this knowledge is ... wrapped up in such a way that children may understand"). And whenever these descriptions are taken as valid ("clay coins being taken for real") they deepen and perpetuate the dream ("all these pictures of creation are not real ... more like a dream ... the way is not get attached to (them)".
Anonymous said...
"I'm suspicious of the terms 'lower knowledge' and 'higher knowledge' as potentially leading to duality in thinking and School attitudes of superiority, if one takes them as two entities".
Exactly.
Kapila said...
"Would the response have occurred without the initial comment?"
A mind 'preoccupied with causality' looks at the two as separate - but causally related - phenomena; but the (apparent) cause and the (apparent) effect are neither separate nor causally related - they are one and the same. Or 'non-different', as the Brahmasutra Bhashya puts it (II.i.13-19):
"There is a non-difference of cause and effect ... since the effect is perceived when the cause is there ... the posterior one [ the effect ] has earlier existence in the cause ... the effect is non-different from the cause on the analogy of a piece of cloth ..." [ the nature of a rolled up piece of cloth being revealed through spreading it out ] etc etc.
Similarly, if, in a dream, you were chased by a lion, ran away, climbed a tree and started throwing coconuts at the lion (or whatever it is that grows on your dream trees); and if after waking up from the dream I asked you: "would you still have dreamt climbing the tree and throwing coconuts if your dream didn't feature a lion", the question probably wouldn't make an awful lot of sense.
"If the response was equally as illusory as the initial comment, why bother?"
This is the same as asking: "if this entire creation is illusory, why does the Absolute bother?" (there are some pointers to the 'answer' in scripture which you are presumably familiar with).
"Were all the questions and answers between disciples and teachers throughout history futile?"
Illusory - not futile. Big difference.
"The enquiry is the endeavour to bring a (causal?) mechanism into the light and thereby have a chance of being free of it."
Yes - they are good questions.
There is no causal mechanism, just a mental preoccupation with causality. This preoccupation with cause and effect allows us to perpetuate the illusion of personal control and free will, one expression of which is the illusion of a spiritual path.
I think that this conversation is swiftly becoming both illusory and futile.
Rudi
You admit the validity of the questions and that the enquiry is not futile, yet it seems the effect of your responses has been taken as futility of endeavour. We each, of course, need to take responsibility as to how we take your words, but we could question whether talking about the notion of everything being illusory was helpful at this juncture or diversionary?
kapila said...
"You admit the validity of the questions and that the enquiry is not futile, yet it seems the effect of your responses has been taken as futility of endeavour."
All endeavour is futile as long as the underlying idea is to move gradually towards liberation, i.e. to sneak up on Unity on some spiritual path - liberation is not a destination at the end of a path. It will not be considered futile, of course, by someone who is content with receiving the benefits of a path interpretation of the teaching (a sense of meaning, purpose and belonging, a greater sense of peace, stillness etc) and is willing to pay the price of eternal postponement of self-recognition.
What is not futile is a deep willingness to be One with the Here and Now, arising naturally as an all-consuming Love of Truth. This includes everything that acknowledges, magnifies and serves this deep longing for its own sake (as opposed to anything that tries to incorporate it into an egoic result-oriented path strategy).
The longing to be One with the Here and Now on the one hand, and the notion of a spiritual path on the other are diametrically opposed, incompatible and irreconcileable. They ALWAYS are - not only 'ultimately', or 'in the final analysis'. When this is acknowledged at the deepest level then the search for the spectacles (to use that metaphor) stops abruptly; and then there is a chance that One may discover what has never been lost.
"... we could question whether talking about the notion of everything being illusory was helpful at this juncture or diversionary?"
Any conversation about the nature of reality and liberation, if conducted in a meaningful way, very quickly and naturally arrives at a juncture where all avenues lead to the realisation that all is illusory. What is diversionary is turning back when this point is reached, and refusing to acknowledge it - not the pointing to it.
You seem to expect our conversation to be 'helpful' - this may not be a 'helpful' way to look at the teaching. Practically all personal accounts of the final stages of self-realisation describe the experience as 'devastating' or similar rather than 'helpful'. Maybe this is a clue why you can't find in our conversation what you are looking for.
Kevin said...
"I think that this conversation is swiftly becoming both illusory and futile."
You make it sound like this is a bad thing.
Since all is illusory (except the realisation of this fact), and since all hankering after results is futile (self-realisation is not an 'outcome' of something one 'does'), this is an opportunity to experience this illusoriness and futility MORE FULLY and MORE DEEPLY, and quite possibly even ALL THE WAY.
Alternatively, you can turn back and return once more to the relative safety of your spiritual path.
Perhaps 'appropriate' would be a better word than 'helpful'. I wouldn't claim success if people had turned away from the dialogue through boredom or fatigue. This is not the same as Krishnamurti's description of:
"...a dialogue in which investigation reaches a certain point of intensity and depth, which then has a quality that thought can never reach."
I'm not having that kind of experience. Is anyone else? I think people have stopped talking for some other reason than enlightenment.
Prayer
You alone show us the pure futility and the real illusion, O Master.
And the false truth. For thine is the un-limited un-ending un-consciousness!
The ignorance of the wise is less than the wisdom of the ignorant. But not the reverse.
Thy unending screed of monotonous sameness fills my ears with concrete and my mind, as it were, with mud.
The birds of common-sense have flown the coop of my head, so that I know nothing.
Except abstract metaphysics, obviously, as thou hast taught.
Master, you are the mind-tool of the incomprehensible.
I long to jump off the motorway bridge of unknowing into the oncoming traffic of the present moment.
You are a failed magician, O master, like Tommy Cooper, only without the jokes.
The laws of physics do not apply to you.
Thy wisdom is cobbled together, yea from a cornlflake-box, and thy certitude transcends arrogance.
I long to free myself, like thou, of doubt, questions and the burden of listening to what anyone else has to say.
You alone stand erect, independent of the crutch of reason, the wheelchair of relevance and the zimmer-frame of logical argument. Only with the assistance of these items do path-bound entities appear to move.
You are the non-sequitur of the Absolute.
Having escaped the bondage of reality, there is freedom.
Perhaps the theory which has nothing better to say than that an unreal soul is trying to escape from an unreal bondage in an unreal world to accomplish an unreal supreme good, may itself be unreality.
- Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy
Kevin,
There is a Rudimentary truth in what you write.
kapila said...
"Perhaps 'appropriate' would be a better word than 'helpful'. I wouldn't claim success if people had turned away from the dialogue through boredom or fatigue. This is not the same as Krishnamurti's description of ...
"... a dialogue in which investigation reaches a certain point of intensity and depth, which then has a quality that thought can never reach".
"I'm not having that kind of experience. Is anyone else?"
Well, call me naive, but at this juncture I would ask myself:
"what prevents me from 'reaching' and 'investigating' deeper? why do I feel lukewarm about this? where has my passion gone, the intensity, my intense longing to know the truth, my love of truth? what game am I REALLY playing here?"
Krishnamurti often had 'bored' and 'fatigued' (and sometimes even quite angry and aggressive!) people leave his meetings early, and when he spoke about this phenomenon he displayed a lot of compassion towards them. He once said 'most come to get something, not realising that this is all about giving and losing something, namely giving and losing yourself' (or words to that effect).
And I very much doubt whether Krishnamurti thought of such incidents in terms of 'success' and 'failure'.
"I think people have stopped talking for some other reason than enlightenment".
I didn't notice all that many people talking here in the first place ... :-)
Kevin said (quoting Radhakrishnan)...
"Having escaped the bondage of reality, there is freedom."
Yes. As long as one doesn't become attached to the experience of freedom, which is still bondage of a subtle kind.
"Perhaps the theory which has nothing better to say than that an unreal soul is trying to escape from an unreal bondage ... may itself be unreality."
Aaah, yes - 'theory'. All this has obviously got nothing whatsoever to do with mere theory, and is way beyond words, teachings, paths, belief systems and such like.
Sounds like words to me, lots of them.
Kevin said (quoting Radhakrishnan)...
"Having escaped the bondage of reality, there is freedom."
Rudi:
Yes. As long as one doesn't become attached to the experience of freedom, which is still bondage of a subtle kind.
That wasn't a Radhakrishnan quote, Rudi ... it was supposed to be a joke, not that you would notice since you transcended your sense of humour.
My favourite bit was this:
People are getting bored and frustrated by Rudi.
Krishnamurti sometimes bored and frustrated people.
Ergo, Rudi must be wise like Krishnamurti!
Keep on escaping that reality, Rudi. Live the dream, eh!
kapila said...
"... a dialogue in which investigation reaches a certain point of intensity and depth, which then has a quality that thought can never reach" (quoting Krishnamurti)
rudi said...
"Krishnamurti often had 'bored' and 'fatigued' ... people leave his meetings early ... [ K said ] 'most come to get something, not realising that this is all about giving and losing something, namely giving and losing yourself' "
Kevin said...
"My favourite bit was this:
People are getting bored and frustrated by Rudi.
Krishnamurti sometimes bored and frustrated people.
Ergo, Rudi must be wise like Krishnamurti!
Keep on escaping that reality, Rudi. Live the dream, eh!"
My favourite bit:
Kapila says: Krishnamurti dialogues are intense / deep, not boring / frustrating
Rudi says: not so, Krishnamurti says people are often bored / frustrated because not ready to 'give'
Rudi's conclusion: intensity / depth depends on readiness of people to 'give'
Kevin's conclusion: Rudi claiming to be wise like Krishnamurti
oh dear ... :-)
According to Rudi:
Kapila says: Krishnamurti dialogues are intense / deep, not boring / frustrating
No, this wasn't what was said. Further explanation unlikely to be fruitful...
A couple of Buddhist Jokes for the weekend:
***
A Zen master once said to me, "Do the opposite of whatever I tell you." So I didn't.
***
Q: Master, can you show me the place of absolute peace.
A: No, because if you go there it will no longer be peaceful!
***
Have a good weekend all! : )
kapila said...
",,, further explanation unlikely to be fruitful ..."
I know the feeling ... :-)
"Q: Master, can you show me the place of absolute peace.
A: No, because if you go there it will no longer be peaceful!"
spot-on!
I met Krishnamurti once.
... and, was the encounter intense and deep, or boring and frustrating? :-)
Rudi,
Firstly I must say that I very much regret having descended to mickey-taking. I've been reflecting on that over the past couple of days and it isn't right. So, sorry about that.
I don't intend carrying on this conversation. Looking back at the original post and the first few comments, it was (to me at least) focused and meaningful. As soon as we started talking about causality and all the rest, it quickly lost its bearings and relevance in a mixture of abstract speculation and criticism.
I don't exempt myself from blame for that in any way.
What I would ask, as the person who has gone to a lot of trouble to create this blog, is that those who participate are prepared to advance their views with an element of self-examination.
What I mean by that is that everyone is prepared to say these three sentences, when needed:
- I'm sorry, I got that wrong
- You made a really good point there
- What do you think?
And mean what he or she says. That is, through genuine contrition and taking responsibility for his or her utterances; heartfelt appreciation of others, if merited; and real curiosity about the views of others.
If you can accept this, then you're most welcome. If you can't, for whatever reason, then I believe that neither you nor anyone else will find the conversation enjoyable, helpful or meaningful.
Laura said:
"I met Krishnamurti once."
What was your experience? (not necessarily in relation to the exchange on this thread)
Kevin said...
"What I mean by that is that everyone is prepared to say these three sentences, when needed ... If you can accept this, then you're most welcome. If you can't, for whatever reason, then I believe that neither you nor anyone else will find the conversation enjoyable, helpful or meaningful."
These are sound principles, and I can't see how anyone can reasonably object to any of them. What I find a bit surprising is that you seem to think that I may have difficulties accepting them. If so, maybe you could explain why.
As to "I'm sorry, I got that wrong", I am not aware of a major error on my part in anything I have said so far on this blog that would require an apology of this nature (if you think differently, maybe you can give an example).
As to "you made a really good point there", my comments (both under this and the Letter from the leader post) are peppered with expressions of appreciation such as 'good stuff', 'spot on', 'good reasoning', 'exactly', 'very good', 'perfect', 'good work', 'good point', 'well observed', 'yes, that's it' etc.
As to "what do you think?", everything I say on this blog is always said in the spirit of "this is what I think, what do you think?". After all, this is a forum for discussion! This is its whole point!
"... heartfelt appreciation of others ... and real curiosity about the views of others".
... not to mention a heartfelt appreciation of - and a real curiosity about - Truth and Liberation ...
"Looking back at the original post and the first few comments, it was (to me at least) focused and meaningful. As soon as we started talking about causality and all the rest, it quickly lost its bearings and relevance in a mixture of abstract speculation and criticism".
This is how you experienced it - fine.
To me, the discussion started out meaningfully yet unfocused (the focus being the revival of students' 'zing' for Liberation), but gradually became more focused and relevant. I never felt it degenerating into "abstract speculation" - on the contrary, it gradually moved closer to the 'heart' of the matter, creating a real sense of the illusory nature of what we commonly think of as 'real', and a palpable sense of what is 'real' in the midst of all this illusory stuff.
This was my experience. I am sure everybody here has their own and different story to tell.
It seems one person's 'abstract speculation' is another person's 'inspired discussion' ... just as what 'bores and frustrates' some is experienced as 'intense and deep' by others ...
"I don't intend carrying on this conversation. I don't exempt myself from blame for that in any way".
Yes, I think this is what we should all concentrate on: accepting responsibility for one's own actions, rather than policing others'.
Where a discussion becomes meaningless, say so and stop participating. After all, if nobody is interested in my comments, I am not likely to continue posting, talking all to myself :-)
OK Rudi. I certainly take the point on praise and I did not mean that I felt you were guilty of all of these things. Indeed, I'm grateful that this has come up.
What I would say on apology is, it's not just a matter of "oops, I made a major error", but also "hmm, people seem to have been offended by that - I'm sorry if I expressed it wrongly" or even "maybe I am not considering all of the factors, and if so I apologise".
Your underlying message, here as elsewhere, is "I have done no wrong".
And on "what do you think?", it's not enough in a written communication to talk about the 'spirit' in which you say things: it must be explicitly said to others, possibly repeatedly, that one does not regard one's remarks as the final word on the subject. The silent spirit doesn't always come across.
You might consider Son of Moses' admirable remarks on the "Three Golden Rules" thread this morning. Or Mr Jaiswal's principle that "If we disagree, then we are both wrong".
What sets "At The Crossroads" apart is the spirit of enquiry in which it is (most of the time!) conducted. On the rare occasion it descends into "mickey taking" it is still quite conservative, relative to other similar blogs! I did not think Kevin needed to apologize, especially as he got it all back (instant karma, score settled!) But it is a nice gesture all the same, and use of the three Golden Rules do reflect the spirit of the School.
It used to be generally accepted that the School too was growing in knowledge and understanding. So the interpretation and ongoing examination of the Teaching, is a very proper and essential part of this process. It may very well be that we do need the occasional hardhitting epistle from Rudi and Katharine etc to facilitate this coming to maturity of the School.
But that heartfelt spirit of enquiry is what it's all about. Here it is okay to ask if we've got it wrong. Massively important observations have now seen the light of day, both in this discussion and in the Leaders Letter exchange. As Laura said you can't do that in the same way somehow in Group. And it is this kind of debate that brings the "zing" right back!
Kevin said...
"What I would say on apology is, it's not just a matter of "oops, I made a major error", but also "hmm, people seem to have been offended by that - I'm sorry if I expressed it wrongly" or even "maybe I am not considering all of the factors, and if so I apologise".
I get that. But I still have trouble thinking of an example where (on this blog) "I didn't consider all of the factors" etc in such a way that an apology would be in order. Maybe you can give an example?
I certainly don't subscribe to the notion that just because someone has been offended, I must have "expressed it wrongly". I may have, of course, but offence on its own is far from a reliable indicator.
"Your underlying message, here as elsewhere, is "I have done no wrong".
No. It's "I can't see how and where - can you give me an example".
"And on "what do you think?" ... it must be explicitly said to others, possibly repeatedly, that one does not regard one's remarks as the final word on the subject. The silent spirit doesn't always come across.
'What do you think' may be 'silent' and therefore needs to be made explicit in certain circumstances, but to me 'discussion group / blog' is synonymous with 'this is what I think, what do you think'.
As to 'final word': I don't consider anybody's remarks, including my own, and not even the scriptures, as the final word on the subject of truth - Truth itself is the 'final word'. Nothing I ever said and ever will say can possibly capture it or come anywhere close to it, i.e. can be 'true' or 'final' in any meaningful sense: "the Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao". Nor can anything I know, or understand, or connect with, or relate to ... etc etc. be it, ever.
The futility of trying to describe Truth in a 'final sense' is so self-evident to me that it never even entered my mind to clarify this!
Christopher said...
"But that heartfelt spirit of enquiry is what it's all about."
'Heartfelt spirit' ... that's it! Where the longing of the true heart is no longer compromised and all doubts and fears are 'liberated' - whatever the consequences.
"And it is this kind of debate that brings the "zing" right back!"
Absolutely - there is no 'zing' like the zing of a heart tasting freedom.
I sense you have a lot of clarity around this issue - you should comment more often!
Rudi
There is not a great difference between "I have done no wrong" and "I believe I have done no wrong". I suppose it is a start, though!
I have made several concessions, taken backwards steps, apologised, expressed self-doubt etc in our discussions ... partly because I really am tentative in my views, but primarily to give you space to soften your stance. You haven't taken advantage of that, or reciprocated.
What is the use of saying "well, this forum is obviously all about examining our ideas, no need to say it", and then refusing to budge an inch on any point?
Recently research was carried out to see whether people could be brought to stop favouring themselves and their own opinions. The experiments were designed to show people that personal bias was universal. The only result of this was to make people more suspicious of others - they did not become any less biased themselves. "That does not apply to me" is our default setting.
Only one thing made any slight difference, and that was when people were asked to write an essay examining their own motives and biases.
There is little point in me or anyone else trying to point out your perceived errors - as we have seen. You simply respond that "you may be getting frustrated, but that has nothing to do with me".
In my view you (like anyone else) need to examine yourself.
Kevin said...
"There is not a great difference between "I have done no wrong" and "I believe I have done no wrong". I suppose it is a start, though!"
I believe my words were "I can't see how and where [ I have done wrong ] - can you give me an example". You had hinted, somewhat cryptically, that I had "not considered all of the factors" and that an apology was in order. Well, as tutors tend to say in the School when it gets vague and woolly: "can you give an example?" :-)
"I have made several concessions, taken backwards steps, apologised, expressed self-doubt etc in our discussions ... partly because I really am tentative in my views, but primarily to give you space to soften your stance. You haven't taken advantage of that, or reciprocated".
I never concede in response to tactical games of this nature. You don't arrive at truth by two people with differing views conceding equally. Instead, I am much more likely to "soften my stance" (or get rid of it altogether!) when I am presented with powerful arguments, based on:-
a) a person's personal experience
b) a full (as opposed to an expediently selective) examination of what scriptures have to say about the subject under discussion
c) personal accounts of experiences of self-realised individuals in relation to the subject under discussion.
If the three do not agree, something is amiss. You may want to try this rigorous approach, and I think you will find that it completely transforms our discussions.
"What is the use of saying "well, this forum is obviously all about examining our ideas, no need to say it", and then refusing to budge an inch on any point?"
As I said - playing tactical games and demanding that two people with differing views concede equally has NOTHING to do with examining one's ideas - this amounts to a REFUSAL to examine one's ideas.
"Recently research was carried out ..."
o me god ... :-)
"There is little point in me or anyone else trying to point out your perceived errors - as we have seen. You simply respond that "you may be getting frustrated, but that has nothing to do with me".
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have consistently argued, and shown with a lot of patience and in considerable detail, that and how my 'ideas' were consistent with a), b) and c) above.
Even if you don't agree, ignoring ALL this and reducing it to "you simply respond that you may be getting frustrated, but that has nothing to do with me" is a gross misrepresentation of what has gone on. (Hmm ... I wonder whether an apology is in order here, under your Golden Rules - you are clearly not only "not considering all the facts" here, but quite cheerfully ignoring ALL of them ... :-)
"In my view you (like anyone else) need to examine yourself."
The words pot, kettle and black leap to mind ... :-)
It was not a tactical game Rudi. I'm not trying to beat you, but to get to the starting line together.
I'm afraid I've really had enough now.
Krishnamurti - I heard him speak in a marquee in Hampshire. It was towards the end of his life and he said then, as he repeatedly said before, that people should not follow him but just attend to his words. I had hitched down there and arrived in time to help crowd out the back of the marquee. The effect was muted and it was difficult to heasr anything at all.
On a previous occasion I met him in Madras with a dozen people (all students of Swami Gitananda with whom we were practising yoga).
This was a more close-up occasion and he answered questions. I don't recall any of the questions, we were somewhat in awe of him, but I do recall the refined presence, almost austere and sparing. It was all very well him saying that people shouldn't follow him, but he had a deeply attractive nature and appearance. It was as though ages had rolled over him and all the chaff had been blown away.
Kevin said...
"It was not a tactical game Rudi. I'm not trying to beat you, but to get to the starting line together".
That is the tactical game, right there. There is no starting (and, by implication, finishing) line to Truth. There is only mind, the master tactician, creating a path where there is none.
Which is why I had to decline your kind invitation.
The only starting point to Truth is radical openness and a complete surrender of all understanding and all interpretations of all teachings - but this innocence and unconditional love of truth is also already the end point.
I can see your 'good intention' behind your suggestion. But as helpful as good intentions are in worldly affairs as useless they are for the discovery of Truth: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and all that.
Truth demands 'true intention' - two people with a different understanding of the teaching conceding equally simply doesn't serve truth. Demanding 'concessions' is just mind playing a tactical game.
You commented under the 'Three Golden Rules' post "maybe the way forward is to start to look at the things that make us personally uncomfortable? What do you think"
I think you are right.
"I'm afraid I've really had enough now".
OK.
Thanks for engaging with me for as long as you have.
Hi Laura
Thanks for the response. Nice to hear. I saw a couple of DVD's of him recently and there are qualities that come through that aren't necessarily apparent in the books? He can sound nihilistic in writing but there was a great deal of warmth and humour in the footage. Just shows (in relation to this thread), how much we can miss of one another without the 'clues' of tone of voice, gesture etc. The danger of projection is greater.
The point, in relation to the earlier K quotation, was with reference to one of the conversations between K, the physicist David Bohm and a psychologist called Shaneberg(?). Shaneberg started the conversation full of his own opinions, talking others down and oblivious to the subtleties of what was being discussed. But by the end of the dialogue, he was visibly more present, quieter, listening. They ended with disussing how the true dialogue led to this kind of experience. I will try and dig out some excerpts from the transcript.
For me, if there's anything that's come out of this particular thread it's to do with how we meet or not. On this point, I agree with Kevin in that the 'starting line' is a meeting or at least willingness to meet. But I also agree with Rudi, that "You don't arrive at truth by two people with differing views conceding equally". I think all we can really 'expect' is willingness to meet (and meeting doesn't necessarily mean agreement). Forgive me for being a 'quote encyclopedia' but in the words of Thomas Merton:
"It is in deep solitude that I find the gentleness with which I can truly love my brothers. The more solitary I am the more affection I have for them…. Solitude and silence teach me to love my brothers for what they are, not for what they say."
The habitual 'school' response to the word solitude is usually a sarcastic remark about 'living in a cave' which is just yet another barrier to meaningful discussion. I think he's talking about going beneath the barrage of meaningless words to meet at the level of being?
Yes, Krishnamurti's words were stripped, spare, but this had its own drawing power. Worth remembering that. The feast didn't give indigestion. As someone who is habitually inclined to rattle on, it's particularly worth my remembering.
It's a question of measure, it seems to me. As is 'solitariness'. We live in the world and must accept our fate in that respect. We can lay waste our powers in this world, but also be rendered impotent by not using them. Aggravating as the world sometimes is, it's better to engage than retreat.
Don't know about you, but I find that loving one's fellow man is deeper after a period of solitude simply because I've missed them. That old adage, 'Absence makes the heart grow fonder,' works here as well.
Now for another quote that arrived as part of an email package this morning. In an interview with Oprah, Maya Angelou said:
'I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.'
To me, my memory of Krishnamurti all those years ago makes the point. Can't remember anything he said at the time, but his presence is vivid as is my response to that.
Laura said:
"It's a question of measure, it seems to me. As is 'solitariness'. We live in the world and must accept our fate in that respect. We can lay waste our powers in this world, but also be rendered impotent by not using them. Aggravating as the world sometimes is, it's better to engage than retreat. "
I partially agree. Engagement with the world is unavoidable. When I have found the measure between solitude & engagement, the engagement is also more effective. But I think the measure is seen by watching the intent, whether it is selfishness or fear on the one hand; or genuine need to let the stresses, words, opinions, busy-ness subside so that I can see anything at all with any clarity.
I have heard and there have been glimpses of experience which would support this - that the real solitude is a state of mind. I accept this, yet the measure of 'recharge' space is a practical, ongoing question.
As promised. It's perhaps difficult to convey the 'quality' of the exchange by just sharing the words but that's the intent. On re-visiting, it reminds me of some of the Socratic dialogues:
K: at the end of these dialogues, what have you, what has the viewer got, what has he captured? …Has his bowl filled? …Or does he say, "Well I have got a lot of ashes left, very kind of you, but I can get that anywhere". Any logical, rational, human being would say, "They are discussing my part in all this and I am left with nothing"… If not, then what? A clever discussion - oh, we are fed up with that. You can only share when you are really hungry - burning with hunger. Otherwise you share words... Which really means that all these discussions, dialogues, have been a process of meditation. Not a clever argument, but a real penetrating meditation which brings insight into everything that is being said.
B: Well, I should say we have been doing that.
K: I think we have been doing that.
K: Meditation is not just argument.
S: No, we have shared in that.
K: Seeing the truth of every statement.
S: Right…
K: Seeing it all, and therefore we are in a state of meditation. And whatever we say must then lead to that ultimate thing. Then you are not sharing.
S: Where are you?
K: There is no sharing. It is only that.
S: The act of meditation is that.
K: There is only that.
kapila said...
"I think all we can really 'expect' is willingness to meet".
Yes, but meet where? There is only one 'place' where a true meeting is possible.
Rumi described this meeting place very well, I think:
"Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase 'each other' doesn't make any sense".
Let's meet THERE.
I WILL BE OFFLINE FOR APPROX. 8 DAYS
Kapila said
For me, if there's anything that's come out of this particular thread it's to do with how we meet or not. On this point, I agree with Kevin in that the 'starting line' is a meeting or at least willingness to meet. But I also agree with Rudi, that "You don't arrive at truth by two people with differing views conceding equally".
Kapila, thanks for your understanding of the "starting line" analogy ... and I agree with Rudi's statement as well.
But I was not talking at any stage about compromising what one says for the sake of a meeting (I'm a little surprised that you took it this way - did you really think I meant that?) but about being prepared to advance one's views with humility, and to be generous towards the other person's views rather than trying to catch them in a net of their words.
The humility is self-awareness, and the generosity is the awareness of the self in the other.
Rudi says (and I apologise that I discuss his ideas when he has, apparently just set off for an eight day sabbatical from being attacked publicly by nearly everyone that hears his ideas):
‘The only starting point to Truth is radical openness and a complete surrender of all understanding and all interpretations of all teachings… innocence and unconditional love of truth.’
Here, for me, is the crux of the unreality of his stance. Indeed, such a stance is the only relevant ‘unreality’ for us to consider in our present situation, not the unreality of Samsara or of the Path provided to us by Grace in order to transcend it.
On one level he is right. In fact I agree with every word of the above quotation. But the truth, if we are prepared to be completely honest, is that we are a thousand miles from such an inner situation.
Experience, self-examination and reason show that, in our present state, the option to be radically open, to surrender all interpretations, to be innocent and unconditional in our love of truth is simply not open to us.
To claim so is to be a hypocrite and quite laughable in our arrogance. A sincere examination of the subconscious, unconscious and conscious activity of our inner being would show how much ‘it’ runs us rather than we being able to simply turn to the truth. It is experimentally demonstrable to anyone who meditates that we cannot control the mind even for two minutes in a row.
So what is the answer to this predicament, since we do sincerely wish to merge in the truth which the masters declare to be reality itself? The answer is plainly declared in the Scripture and by all the Mahapurushas of every great tradition. It is to purify, transform and order the inner being.
We, specifically have been recommended to engage in the Path of the Fourth Way. Yes, a path, I say. This is the recommendation of His Holiness for the householder and nothing that Rudi, Gangaji, or any other nouveau-advaitin says makes much sense beside it. There are no short-cuts and to get addicted to the idea that there are is a form of greed and so much waste of time.
No doubt further weasel words will be offered in order to tempt us from the Path laid out by the wise, but we should resist such blandishments and stick to the work directly before us. This work is revealed to us inwardly and outwardly at every moment by Grace Itself.
The way the universe is organised in every little detail ensures that each next step presented to us, if we are sensitive and willing to take it, is entirely manageable and entirely consonant with our individual needs and directly in accordance with our capacities.
Thanks be to God.
Kevin said:
"I was not talking at any stage about compromising what one says for the sake of a meeting (I'm a little surprised that you took it this way - did you really think I meant that?)"
To be straight - I wasn't really considering what you meant at this point. Just that Rudi's statement encapsulated a correct principle IMV.
Kevin said:
"be generous towards the other person's views rather than trying to catch them in a net of their words."
Yes I think there has been a fair amount of that going on. Philosophic psycho-analysis? Quite often, I think we probably read too much into the slightly inaccurate use of a word?
Kap - if the world is seen as 'out there' then it may well be experienced as a nuisance and a burden. But if there's no difference between the world within and the world out there, then where are the fault lines of stress?
Ok, ok, enough with the little mission of improbability, you may think. Let's get practical here. How much solitary times does one need? An hour a day for meditation?
As recommended. More for study? (Depends what kind, I guess. University of life study or book study.)
If one ever feels lonely, or a little protective of 'my life', that's a sure sign, I'd say, that something needs to change.
And, yes, I've been there and asked the same questions.
Thanks, K, for starting this blog, and sustaining it, and having the wit and wisdom to weave new ideas into universal themes.
It's really been appreciated, you should know that, and there's a lot of life and intelligence here that can be taken much further.
Laura said:
"Let's get practical here. How much solitary times does one need? An hour a day for meditation?"
I don't think I'm able to come up with a formula of measure for this. It is more along the lines of recognising that I am agitated and need to pause. How much and for how long is dependant upon what's going on in the mind. But I make no claim to having resolved any of this. It is all a work in progress.
Re: Solitude
The frustration (not directed at anyone in particular) with the lack of exploration with this particular subject is:
If we consider ‘solitude’ to mean ‘without proximity to other bodies’ and
‘Engagement’ to mean ‘proximity to other bodies’, with associated talking & other activities
then I think we are dealing with complete absence of penetration into the subject. So the tiresome cliché about ‘living in a cave’ never gets beyond this to examining what is really happening. What is solitude? Is it necessary and to what degree? Is it a state of mind as opposed to anything to do with proximity to other bodies?
You can be ‘amongst others’ yet still lost in your own thoughts or alienated. You can be ‘alone’ on a park bench and have a greater sense of connectedness to everything. Which is the solitude? The earlier quotation by Thomas Merton cannot be taken to mean ‘complete withdrawal’ as he says,
“It is in deep solitude that I find the gentleness with which I can truly love my brothers.”
This isn’t separation. The ‘solitude’ is surely the clearing of the mind of the habitual thoughts, attitudes, emotions(?) which are the real ‘separation’ between Merton and his brothers?
Taking ‘me’ out of the equation, I think the world would be a considerably more peaceful and happier place if more people spent more time sitting on a park bench ‘just being’.
Kapila
I think this thread has got too long, and has wandered away in several different directions. People are carrying on at least 3 different conversations at once, and so I suggest that you start a new post on solitude?
Hi Kevin
In the weird configuration of synaptic connections known as 'my brain' all of these things are related, but I take the point that the post is getting rather long. Will re-jig & re-submit.
Post a Comment