200th Post

As the title suggests, this is the 200th post on this blog (thanks to Laura, Son of Moses, Kapila and others who have contributed to the total). Maybe this is a good time to reassess.

When the blog started as "Free the Teaching" last April, I was personally motivated to make a nuisance of myself. The "whyaretheydead" message board had forced St James and the School into positive action, and having participated on that board for about 3 months, I had had enough. Being an "out" member of the School on there was no fun at all, unless you're one of those people that enjoy sports like urban hang-gliding, traffic-dancing or javelin-catching. Even so, it seemed absurd that it was the only place to discuss the School openly and honestly.

I also had the view (which I still hold) that the School's problems are not due to mystical blockages in the divine ether, or demonic evil-doing behind the scenes, but because we are not getting things right. The reason we are not getting things right was that we have not listened properly to the Shankaracharya and, instead of that, interpreted his words in a special way that was less threatening to us. I believe that is the real reason why the School has been so reluctant to release the Conversations to its own students before they have heard them several times in a group context. By restricting access to the Conversations except via the tutorial voice, the School has been able to control our understanding of the Conversations. By the time a student gets a copy, his understanding of their contents has been thoroughly prepared.

This is not sinister or dishonest. It is human nature, expressed in a rather paranoid way. I've detailed extensively elsewhere my views on this, but to give you an example, the School has traditionally had a very possessive view of its members. It was a jealous god, and anyone who left the fold was to be regarded as 'fallen'. Someone trying to be associated with the School without being an active member was believed to be benefitting from the sattva of others without doing the work. Friendships within the School were based on truth, and so if someone left then what would that friendship be based on, except a lie?

All of these ideas are plainly ridiculous, as well as impractical. It creates paranoia and shame among the members, and anger and bitterness among the "leavers".

But even if we were disposed to ignore the evidence of our own eyes, we could have listened to what the Shankaracharya told us about the two kinds of disciples at the ashram. The first kind ("inmates") remain there, working all the time under discipline; the second kind live their lives and only attend when they feel the need to do so. There is no distinction in what he says between the two. It is a matter of the needs of the disciples, and not of the needs of the ashram.

This issue has been raised with our leader and he has responded. The parties earlier this year were generally felt to have been a success, and no doubt over time the old scars will heal and a proper relationship with our members past and present will be established. Other initiatives have appeared in the past year and are under way that will fundamentally alter the way the School functions, and I believe that on the whole these changes are for the good.

It's not relevant to wonder whether the existence of this blog has made a difference. The question now is whether it has a place in the present situation.

It has seemed in recent weeks that the blog has begun to lose its way. Discussions about the merits of "other paths", have not, to my mind, added a great deal. Those that have chosen to go elsewhere are welcome to it and we wish them luck, but this blog is not the place for them to advertise their new affiliation or to compare it to the School. It's a bit like a discussion forum on the future of the Church of England being taken over by people who have left its gentle bumbling behind and converted to something more radical and uncompromising, let us say Islam. Maybe the grass is greener. As I am sure you have heard,

There is a happy land far far away,
Where they have ham and eggs
Three times a day.

But this blog is, I am afraid, about the School.

Those that believe, on the other hand, that because this is all a dream there is therefore nothing to do or discuss should perhaps not take part in the discussion. This blog was created with the view that there is work that needs to go on (aaargh ... language becoming more impersonal ... and ... dead ... must avoid ... linguistic elephant-traps), all right - I believe we need to do some work - no-one will do it for us - to clear away the obstacles. If you don't share that view, fine. Just don't use this blog to tell me off about it.

Another thing the blog is not for is providing 'inspiration'. Reading this blog will, regretfully, probably not help you to become self-realized. It will never be the group evening you wish you had. Group is for self-realization. Blog is for exploring how the School is, and how it should be (based on philosophical principle), and how the gap can be closed. It can still be fun, of course, but let's not forget why we are bothering.

Am I being unreasonable or preachy here? I probably am, but I'm just doing my best. I'd rather be a Socrates-type mosquito, irritating people into life a little bit, than persist with habitual error. The School is very good at continuing in a straight line, and unfortunately it does tend towards tamasic repetition unless someone breaks ranks. That means someone has to play the part of breaking ranks, for the good of the School. While remembering that it is just playing a part.

Again, I feel that after 200 posts the blog has somewhat lost its way, and we need to have a think about it.

Should we:

(a) stop, given that the School is changing rapidly and radically?
(b) replace the blog with something less personal to me, such as a bulletin board, or an edited newsletter which seeks contributions from interesting people?
(c) replace it with, say, a monthly or bi-monthly informal meeting?
(d) try to replace it with an official regular meeting?
(e) your suggestion here

Read more

Show, don't be

there are two kinds of actors: introvert and extrovert. The introvert plays on the back foot, assumes character and attempts to 'be real'; the extrovert plays on the front foot, demonstrates and presents a character. As a generalisation, the extrovert actor flourishes at The Globe, the introvert does not. 'Show, don't be' is the rule.

- Howard Brenton writing about the Globe theatre in the Guardian, 12th May 2007

This comment interested me greatly, and I think it's because it reminds me of the School's founder. I remember he said that Christ on the cross was "putting on a show". However repugnant such a view may be to orthodox Christianity, it says a lot about the style and verve with which McLaren went about things. Surprising then that so many of his acolytes lack any sense of theatre. They are people playing on the back foot, 'attempting to be real', with the justification that "simply being" is where it's at, looking nervously down their pale noses at those who appear different.

(I recently spoke to two senior and very bright people in the School who had each decided to stop giving public talks because of the flak they got from fellow group members.)

What these people forget, of course, is that if there was an exam for "being" we would all get 100%. "Being" is not an aspiration, but a reality. Philosophically we can accept that life is a play, but how many of us know how to enjoy it?

How many of us can show that it is a play?

Read more

Zing

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.

Read more

Bananas: His Holiness’ Words as a Tutors’ Capping Kit.

Have you noticed how His Holiness’ conversations can be used as a tool for making the world narrower, rather than what they were intended for, namely to break open our narrow vision to reveal the infinite spaces of the universal reality?

What do I mean? Let’s take a hypothetical example: bananas. In the conversations, His Holiness might have said something about bananas, perhaps as a diversion from the main thread of conversation, or to illustrate something else, or as part of a story, or whatever. It will rarely be a definition or an attempt to say the ultimate and last word on the subject.

Unfortunately, however, in the mind of the unimaginative tutor - unrefreshed by study of the conversations as a whole, or of the other works of the Vedic canon, or of the history of thought, or the lively global conversation of the early twenty-first century - this statement on bananas from then on becomes the entire truth about the subject ... click "Read More"

And so, if the student should say something about bananas that does not quite resonate with the context and content of His Holiness’ offhand remark, then the student’s comment will be ‘capped’ by the jubilant tutor: ‘You’ve got it wrong, lad. Let’s stick to the teaching. His Holiness says this, that, or the other.’

In this way the tutor retains the upper hand and the conversation is stymied. It may be that Shankara says the very opposite somewhere, or Plato, or Vasishtha, or Alasdair McIntyre. It is not well understood in the School that the Vedic tradition allows for many views and does not append the labels ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to ideas as we tend to do in the West, and as our founder was wont to do.

This crass illustration, of course, is just an imaginary example of a general trend. The remedy, however, is not obvious. It would involve widening the education and cultural outlook of the average tutor. It might involve the unthinkable decision to choose tutors who, rather than being ‘safe pairs of hands’, would be ‘loose canons’. It might involve having a rotating tutorship each week within each senior group.

It would certainly involve moving outside of the comfortable, endlessly-repeated habits of group practice and settled dogma, and letting into the School the fresh air and unlimited possibilities of the present.

Can you see this happening?

Posted on behalf of Son of Moses.

Read more

Kindness

If there is one thing we need to learn as a School, it is how to be kind and compassionate to each other.

Fortunately, things have improved a lot over the past 15 years or so, at least negatively: there is less of the cruelty that used to characterise the organisation:

- a member of the Foundation ladies who experienced responses to questions that were 'like being thrown up against a wall and having rifles pointed at me ... eventually I learned to stop asking. I thought "whatever you want me to say, I'll say it" '
- an Irish student who was asked by a Senior member if his toolbox was "a bomb to blow us all up"
- the custom of the "exocet", a response to a question so devastating that it leaves nothing but scorch-marks on the ballroom floor
- a student who was forced to confess to his homosexuality by a tutor, who within minutes passed this information on as gossip to some of the students' fellow group members

Thank goodness such incidents are now very rare. But it was once the opposite.

I remember many years ago being shocked to hear of how a senior tutor criticised an i/c for taunting one of the students working under him ... shocked because the senior tutor actually believed that it was wrong to taunt people for their apparent weaknesses. When that shock had worn off I was still more shocked by the implications of my being surprised at this. How had I become so accustomed to unkindness that it came to seem normal?

That kind and intelligent tutor has since left the School. The perpetrators of the other examples are mostly still with us. I do not say this because I believe they should be called to account. That would be vindictive. I say it to illustrate just how far we have to go to create the atmosphere of love, discipline and care that is the Satsanga.

Samson dreamt of a dead lion with a beehive in its open belly (commemorated in the beautiful picture on the tin of Lyle's Golden Syrup!) Motto: "Out of the strength came forth sweetness". Let's hope so.

Read more

Letter from the leader

This letter from Mr Lambie has just been posted on the London site - I think that it's a good step towards a more open approach. What do you think about this, and about the content? - K

Welcome to what is intended to be the first of a series of letters to share some thoughts and reflections about the School and its work. I hope that members of the Schools both in the UK and around the world will find it of interest.

Aims
The principal aim of the School is complete liberation – or, to put it another way, the realisation of Man’s full potential. Together with that there is the secondary purpose of seeking to live and work in such a way as to serve and enrich society and the world in which we live.

Voyage of discovery
As far as the first of these aims is concerned, it is important to make the point that this is very much a voyage of discovery. What may have been understood or experienced in the past should not be taken as final and complete. Rather, it can serve as the foundation for something greater and finer to emerge. Every day provides opportunities for this to happen.
Although the great teachers set out their wisdom fully and generously, it is up to every individual to discover the real meaning and import of that for him or herself. Working together in a School does however mean that one person’s discovery can become everyone’s discovery, and in this way the process is enhanced.

Freedom is an inner state of being and as such it is difficult if not impossible for it to be quantified. Advaita philosophy does however give certain indicators. Where a person has greater energy, steadfastness, reason, love and happiness, and where there is a coherence between thoughts and actions, these do demonstrate a growth of freedom. Advaita philosophy also speaks of universal freedom and the complete elimination of misery. It provides the knowledge which, taken together with meditation, makes this possible. This remains the goal.

Spiritual and cultural heritage
As far as the second of these aims is concerned, the School, in addition to studying and teaching Philosophy, also aims to explore such subjects as art, music, law, economics, science, language, dance, renaissance studies, medicine and education in the light of Philosophy.
Recently, for example in Ireland, we spent a week considering the practical application of Platonic dialectic. London has just seen the book launch of a new translation by a School member of the Asclepius by Hermes Trismegistus. The teachings of such figures as Plato and Hermes Trismegistus may seem arcane but, when really connected with, they can provide invaluable and inspiring insights into present day life. A series of lectures entitled “The Philosophical Garden” on some of these subjects can be downloaded from this web-site.
The full list of all the School’s activities is long. In forthcoming letters I will say something more about these.

Liberation and service
The aims of liberation and seeking to serve society are not unrelated. Where there is a real sense of freedom, any service will carry something of that quality. It will be open, intelligent, creative and full of love. Likewise, in facing the challenges of the world, people often have to transcend their own, self imposed, limits. In rising to the occasion in this way, something of the true nature of the Self is experienced.

I believe the work of the School is of utmost importance. The philosophic teaching that has come from Shri Shantananda Sarasvati is capable of meeting the needs both of individuals and the world in a marvellous way. We do however need to continue with the process of discovery and give great care and attention to all that takes place. In this way we can best seek to fulfil our aims.

Read more

In praise of egg-heads

One of the problems the School faces at the moment is its lack of specialists. Mr MacLaren used to inveigh against "experts" and their "qualifications", which was fair enough in a way, but taken to extremes it leads to some very narrow thinking. For example, the idea that "falling still in the moment" is the only necessary thing in learning the truth.

As a consequence, we are a school of Advaita Vedanta philosophy almost entirely staffed by people who are unable to explain the word Vedanta; who do not know what characterises that philosophy and sets it apart from, say, Yoga or Buddhism; and who have no awareness of Western philosophy other than smatterings of Plato and Ficino.

I recently spoke to a new tutor who explained Advaita as "Er ... duality?"

The problem is not that most people don't know these things. Most people have more important issues in their lives, and indeed in their approach to philosophy. There is no reason for us all to be egg-heads. But some of us need to be, if we are to develop as an organisation. As a minimum, all tutors should be given a basic grounding in Indian philosophy, and a nodding acquaintance with Western thought wouldn't hurt either. That would make it so much easier for everyone else.

A knowledgeable person is like a tent pole - you don't need many of them, but without them we must all stumble around in the dark, confused.

So this is a plea for diversity. Let's celebrate the boffins - for all their strange knitted cardigans, oddly high foreheads and unkempt appearance, they also are God's creatures.

Read more

In Memoriam

Yesterday we had a party for people who have left our stream over the years. This unprecedented event seemed to go very well. We didn't have a huge turn out (about 20 people, plus children), but everyone who came seemed really happy to be there.

For some reason, though, I felt sad and melancholic. I couldn't really put my finger on it during the event, but I believe that it was because yesterday represented the end of an era. Old Mr MacLaren would never have countenanced such an event - he took a pretty hard line on "leavers" - and when it finally happened, at the School's Waterperry home, it seemed to hit home that he really is gone now.

A few years ago I read a book called "Built to Last", which was a study of businesses that have lasted a long time, and why. One of the case studies was Disney, a company that went through a period of drifting immediately after the death of its founder. The authors of the book said that the problem with Disney was that for 15 years the first question everyone asked was "What would Mr Walt have said?" The company only began to revive itself when the management stopped asking this question and started to think for themselves. In fact what they did was restate the company's objective, which is to create happiness. Whether or not one likes Disney films, it will be evident that "How can we make people happy?" is a better question than "What would Mr Walt have said?" ... click "Read More"

Mr MacLaren's passing in 1994 was a dramatic event. I well remember the journey to Waterperry that night. Although we didn't yet know it, the elements seemed to express what had just occurred: it was the biggest electrical storm for years in the south of England. In the papers the next day I read how a girl playing football had been killed by the lightning. He was a force of nature, and I can't resist recalling here what Andrew Marvell wrote of Oliver Cromwell:

And like the three-fork'd lightning, first
Breaking the clouds where it was nurst,
Did thorough his own side
His fiery way divide:

...

Then burning through the air he went
And palaces and temples rent;
And Cæsar's head at last
Did through his laurels blast.

'Tis madness to resist or blame
The face of angry Heaven's flame
And if we would speak true,
Much to the man is due

Or perhaps it goes back even further - to the original genesis of the School in the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. Gurdjieff, too, was a titan, and one with iron in his soul. He taught that unless someone had come under discipline, he did not really exist as a human being. Cruel stories cluster around him: how he made a fortune defrauding small-town mayors while working for the Russian railway; how he tortured horses so that they would obey no-one but him while he made his escape from Russia in 1917; his admiration for a Corsican bandit who would stare through his gunsight at a stretch of road for hour after hour, attention never wavering, waiting for the next victim.

Of course, there is much more to Gurdjieff, but if I overemphasize the cruel and harsh, it is because I think it's that element that passed out of the School yesterday. No longer will someone who leaves the School be ostracized; no longer will the fear of ostracism scare people into staying; and no longer need we see ourselves as superior in order to justify such behaviour.

This is, of course, a great day for the School. But if it also marks in some way the passing of Mr MacLaren, then perhaps it is natural to feel a certain sober regret. For all his foibles and his hardness, much to the man is due.

It would be interesting to hear what others felt yesterday, or in general about the recent developments.

Read more

Why philosophy?

Criticisms of the School often centre on its use of the word "philosophy". People often arrive expecting a course in the history of ideas or of philosophers. Or, they expect that there will be more intellectual content than there is.

Conversely, we must suppose that many people don't come because they expect something that is overly academic for their tastes or abilities.

Then, within the School itself, there is uncertainty about the meaning of philosophy. It means "love of wisdom", but is this "desire for wisdom" (as Plato says in the Symposium, when he says that no philosopher is wise, because if they were they would no longer have the desire for what they have) or is it "love for that wisdom which one has"?

I think that a majority of members of the School would subscribe to the latter view. Wisdom is contained in the "scriptures" as well as in the heart, and it is a matter of joining with the wisdom already present.

This creates a further problem, which is that once people have attended for a year or two they realise that the School does not stand for "philosophy", but for "a philosophy". In the London School less than 10% complete 3 terms, so maybe the penny drops even earlier. People do not want this.

So we have a marketing problem, and an identity problem. The marketing problem is that people understand philosophy to mean something that we do not mean. The identity problem is more serious, because in my opinion we have got it wrong. ... click "Read more"

Philosophy in the West and India are different things. In the West, we have inherited from Christianity the idea of orthodoxy (ortho = "right", doxy = "belief", "right opinion" or "right religion") - that is, that there is one view that is correct. This is why modern science and modern philosophy can be such tough going: they are competing with religion to claim the title of "the one right opinion". The School, meanwhile, makes the same mistake in a different way. It says, "modern science and philosophy are clearly wrong, therefore the religious approach must be right".

But we are wrong. There doesn't have to be a single right answer.

In India, there has never been a tradition of orthodoxy. Krishna says that "however men worship me, even so I reward them". The Indian tradition is not that of one correct opinion, but of many opinions that are all partial approximations to the one truth. It is one of keeping the doors of the mind open until wisdom dawns. The Indian idea is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxy ("right practice").

In the West, we have constrained thought and free living; but India stands for free thought and disciplined living.

That is what I believe the School should stand for: not quasi-religion hiding under the name of philosophy, but a new (for the West) idea of philosophy.

The School has an effective discipline, and a partial method. All we need to do is to free our minds from dogmatic ideas. This is already happening, I believe - see some recent posts on developments in the School - and it is just a matter of more of us lending our shoulders to the wheel.

Everyone can do this, by the way, not just egg-heads. The important questions are important to everyone, and for that reason everyone can ponder them. Just because you haven't exercised a muscle for a while doesn't mean you can't. Ultimately, no expert, guru or acharya whatsoever can do this work for you.

If you don't quite believe that this radical view is representing the tradition rightly, then you need to question what I'm saying. I would welcome any questions, especially from those who believe that this view is alien to the School they dearly love.

Read more

Signs of life?

This blog started 10 months ago following all of the kerfuffle over St J, created largely by an online bulletin board where ex-pupils aired their grievances. I was very frustrated that (a) all of this stuff hadn't been sorted out sooner (b) many people were still unwilling to admit that the School was at fault and (c) there was no forum within the School to discuss anything in a proper fashion.

The kerfuffle seems to have died down. I don't have any inside information on why that might be, but I would speculate that a number of actions including the official apology from the School and the truth & reconciliation meetings with governors must have helped. My feeling has always been that the people who suffered as children were mainly motivated by a wish to have that acknowledged. The dark mutterings about "hardened activists" do not seem to have been justified, on the whole.

Anyway, my concern was never primarily about St J because it really is none of my business, except in so far as it is an extension of the School itself and therefore a useful lever for change. So what sort of changes have been happening in the School? I know many people who read this blog don't have much of an idea about the experiments and new initiatives, so I thought it might be useful to list some ... click "read more"

1. Parties for "alumni"
Alumni is my term for people who spent a considerable time in School (say 3 years). The attitude to people who leave has always been that they have turned from the true path, but this seems to be changing. A number of parties are being held for such people. The intention is to expand the School's sense of its family, to acknowledge the contribution of the alumni, and to let them know that just because they don't attend any more doesn't mean they are unwelcome.

2. Experimentation with groups, study days and weekends
Experiments I have personally witnessed or heard about in the middle and senior levels include: groups sitting in a circle, students tutoring groups, students tutoring study sessions, groups being mixed up on weekends, "free form" reflection sessions in which it is left up to the intelligence of the student, experimental meditation techniques including those from other traditions. The last two study days I attended were essentially tutored by students.

3. Willingness to explore new online formats
It's now possible to download podcasts from the main web site, and the word is that online discussion groups will soon be started.

4. Links with other organizations
See "Developments" post below. This was pioneered by the Economics faculty a few years back, and - praise be - it is now filtering through to philosophy. The obvious and easiest step is to build connections with similar Advaitin/Hindu groups. I would also like to see us getting some help from university philosophy departments, initially perhaps for things like Plato and Ficino, but eventually including modern Western philosophy. Members of the language faculty attended the World Sanskrit conference in Edinburgh last year for the first time.

5. More liberal attitude to School members' time
In the last couple of years it has become acceptable to put family needs before that of attending one's group, weekend or whatever. Couples have been offered the chance to move stream so that they attend the same weekends.

6. The School asks questions
Again pioneered by the Economics faculty over a decade ago when they asked people to fill in a survey explaining their concerns about economics. The philosophy faculty (a notional entity, like the Alumni, but if you keep saying it, it might happen) seems to be starting to shift too. This is the biggest step, because if the School asks its members (or the public) a non-rhetorical question, it means that the School is finally surrendering a claim on knowledge. All of the preceding five points are helping to create the atmosphere for this.

So, there it is. My personal view, which you may not agree with, is that all of these points are positive signs of life, and that we are finally throwing off the blanket of fear that has covered us for so long, and discovering that the world is not actually opposed to us. Of course, these actions are not endorsed by all senior members - we don't have any way of knowing what they say in the smoke-filled rooms - but so far there has been no revolt.

Do you think some of these changes are wrong? Or do you, like me, agree with them? What other changes would you regard as a sign of health?

It would be very good to hear from everyone, and also from some new voices. I know we have more readers than participants.

Read more

Developments

I heard recently about a new initiative, which is for the School, in co-operation with a number of similar organizations, to promote meditation as a part of daily life.

When I heard about this my immediate response was not "wow, that's fantastic" but "OK, now we're doing what we should". We are not going to transform the School by action, but since we are all bound to act, it makes a great difference what actions we engage in. Would others agree with me that this is the kind of thing we should be doing?

For me, an important issue is that we ought to be capable of giving more than people who are not actively involved in spiritual work.

Development, according to His Holiness, depends upon having more energy available than we need to live our lives. If our lives (including duties) are so exhausting, then we really aren't living properly. If we have nothing to spare for others outside School, we've forgotten the point. Do we expend all our efforts on School duties and on raising the funds to send our children to The Right School? Or is the School the "backstage" that enables us to perform our parts much more brilliantly than we might otherwise do?

There is no possible contradiction between philosophy and an expansive life that is of service to the entire community. Or is there?

Incidentally, if there are many more initiatives such as this (AND if the results are not claimed by the School, as so often) will we need this blog?

Read more

Service?

As usual, this is posed as a question for discussion, not a conclusion:

I remember several years ago a lady in the group I was in at the time speak about her plans for the Xmas break. She was intending, for the first time, to go away and leave the husband and ‘kids’ (I think they were fairly grown up) to fend for themselves. The tutor questioned this line of action, whether it was for ‘me’ or whether it was service. The argument of the lady in question was, ‘Well they’re going to have to learn to look after themselves sometime’.

So… is there a danger of weakening someone else through ‘service’? If a mother always does everything for her children will they grow up unable to cook or tie their own shoelaces? Or perhaps worse, grow up with no inclination to learn how to cook or tie their own shoelaces? Is there another kind of service that may not necessarily respond to the immediate need but has in mind the long term need for independence? ... click "Read more"

To step away from the metaphor and speak more directly about tutors and students (both on the giving and receiving end): I question whether there are two kinds of help:

- that which confirms and supports the inner knowledge

- someone ‘trying’ to help

The former is experienced as freeing and strengthens trust in oneself. The latter is an identity, and ahankara is hiding within it, protecting itself. Therefore it’s raison d’etre will presumably involve keeping someone else dependant so that it can maintain this? And presumably maximise the acquisition of it’s punya points?

To paraphrase an old college teacher of mine:

“The goal of a teacher is to make himself redundant.” or

"The true Guru …knows you need nothing, not even him, and is never tired of reminding you."

~ Nisargadatta Maharaj

Read more

Response Ability

When I first started in the school x years ago I understood the practises as they were explained to me and as I connected with them as follows:

In the midst of our everyday lives, practise being present, listening, being honest, unselfish etc: and this practise will transform the immediate situation, for ourselves and for others we are in contact with. It was experienced and known to be true. There was no requirement to change your job or get involved in politics, social reform etc. But as time has passed there seems to be a continuing 'pressure' towards 'involvement' in these areas. I am not a lawyer, or a politician, or an economist. I have written to my MP three times. The response to the last of these made it clear to me that I didn’t sufficiently understand the issues involved and was beginning to dabble, through a misplaced sense of duty in areas I should keep out of. Does not the Gita say:

“Better by far to do your own duty, however bereft of merit, than another's duty well performed; better is death in the discharge of one's duty, another's duty is fraught with danger." [Ch3, V35]

It is known, that as far as various forms of activism are concerned, I should act when I feel genuinely moved to do so and I am sufficiently informed. Not act because I feel the weight of a continual overt or covert accusation that I am “doing nothing”. ... click "Read more"

When I understand that my responsibility is to practise within the midst of my everyday life, not try to change anything but just be present and honest; things are considerably simpler. As Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas:

"When two make peace with each other in the same house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move !' and it will move."

I have seen situations transform through this: with 'decades old' feuds within my family; with getting to a point of mutual cooperation with a previously difficult individual at work; with getting beyond frustration with a member of my group to experiencing some genuine affection. This is the work, as far as I’m concerned and it may just 'move mountains' in a way that misinformed activism wont. The constant covert accusation of "doing nothing" coming from some directions is false and unjust. It’s result is perpetual stress between the ‘as is’ and ‘the ideal’ and magnification of the 'doer'.

I am not cynical or indifferent to the more practically inclined amongst us. I wish you every success in your endeavours. I support this in various ways, when I am moved to do so. Quite often, believe it or not, without any impulse from the school. But this comes back to ‘dignity of difference’. With reference to the group member alluded to above I can see that someone else has a different inclination to myself. They are devoted to practical action, I feel I am naturally more contemplative. If we can begin to see this and allow the other the space to be themselves, to be of service according to their temperament without saying "you are wrong, I am right”, then I think we can move together in our various ways. We are of optimum service when allowing our natural tendencies towards good to flow unhindered. Conversely, interference is ‘fraught with danger’. It causes people to forget who they are.


'The roads are different, the goal is one ... When people come there, all quarrels or differences or disputes that happen along the road are resolved. Those who shouted at each other along the road "You are wrong" or "You are an unbeliever" forget their differences when they come there because there, all hearts are in unison.' ~ Rumi

Read more

Nothing

I had a strange dream just before waking this morning.

I was at a School function of some kind, and I met someone I know - let's call him M. (He is, I think, the happiest person I've ever met. He's always full of energy and enthusiasm; he's always delighted to meet you; I think his experience of the world is what my own might be one day, if the medicine works. He's not in School. It seems to be just the way he is.)

In my dream, however, I could hardly recognise him. He was wearing a conservative dark blue suit and tie, he looked frightened, and uncertain of what to do. What I knew, as I woke, was that M had forgotten himself because he had spent time in School.

Well, it was just a dream. Even so, I think it reflects something that I've felt for a long time. The School as it is raises some people up, because it's relatively better than what they know. There are others, however, who already know something better, and for them the School is relatively bad company. What we do is teach people about duty and obedience. This is helpful to many, but there are others for whom duty is the bedrock of their existence - but far from the whole of it. For them, "there is no time to attend a School, or to do duties" (Conversations, 1965).

This is not to say we are all wasting our time: not at all; but it is time we made an honest, unsentimental assessment of how far we need to go. We're not going to improve things by magic; nor are we going to do it by effort. We need to start being intelligent. Not intellectual, just reasonable. We need to start giving something better, so that the best people are attracted. This isn't a marketing issue: we need them.

There's another man I know who has something of M's quality - again, not in the School, as it happens. He's been fairly successful in life. I heard a story about how he was accosted by a mean old lady, who spat at him, "I knew you when you were nothing!"

He paused for a moment, and said to her quite calmly, "And I knew you before you were nothing".

Read more

School Confidential

A recent conversation among four students, average years in School 20-ish, revealed that none of them were aware of the School's confidentiality policy.

I haven't seen it written down, but direct enquiries have revealed that all communications with one's tutor are regarded as non-confidential. The tutor can (indeed must) reveal anything pertinent to the branch leader, as a protection against abuses of various kinds.

This is, it seems to me, fair enough. It is not the only policy that could be applied - for example, it could be that the tutor-student relationship was regarded as "confessional" as in the Catholic Church; or it could be that tutors would be obliged to divulge details to someone unconnected with the student, without giving a name - but it is the policy ... click "read more" to read on

The problem is, none of we four students had been informed of this policy in all our time in the School. Two of those present are tutors with some years behind them, and were also unaware of this expectation. All of us agreed that there were things we had said to our tutor that we probably would not have said if we had been aware of the policy.

Further problems then arise, because if a policy is not disseminated to the students, or even to the tutors, then it is open to endless abuse and misapplication, wittingly or not. It is part of the paternalism that (usually benevolently) treats the student as a child without equal rights, and requires too little discipline from tutors.

Views, anyone?

Read more

Whole Men Move Together

This quote from Mr MacLaren arose in the mind today which people may recognise from the early material:

“In truth, each is made whole, in truth all are united. No happiness is like to that in which the reasoning powers, the feeling powers and the active powers move together, manifesting the truth in man. No happiness is like to that in which whole men move together, manifesting the truth in all of them, showing unity in diversity and permanence in change.”

We could take the second sentence to be applicable to many situations but it can be quite obviously applied to the school itself. The phrase that sticks out here, and hence the title of this post, is ‘whole men’. It is interesting to watch those who appear to have found their niche. There is an integrity, autonomy and independence. They appear to be allowing the seeds of their own nature to come to fruition. And the fruition is not egotistical and separatist but the expression of who they are in service of something greater. This is perhaps an aspect of sva-dharma, one’s own duty? Each needs to become himself and manifest this. Not become someone else who he ‘should’ be. There is a quote from the Buddhist tradition:

‘What are you so feverishly running after? Putting a head on top of your own head, you blind idiots! Your head is right where it should be. Your trouble lies in your not believing in yourselves enough. Because you don’t believe in yourselves you are knocked here and there by all the conditions in which you find yourselves. Being enslaved and turned around by objective situations, you have no freedom whatever, you are not masters of yourselves.”

~ Lin Chi (Rinzai) ... click "Read more"

So perhaps it is necessary that we believe in ourselves, or ‘become ourselves’ before we can come into right relationship with another or become ‘one’ as a body of people? This can’t happen as long as we don’t trust ourselves. We are pulled here and there by various advice and opinions of varying degrees of insight. We can try to deny ourselves to ‘fit in’ but this ultimately fails. We cannot be true to someone else if we aren’t being true to ourselves. “Above all else to thine own self be true…” as the saying goes.

Related to this is the basic premise of Jonathan Sacks’ book, “Dignity of Difference” which I would summarise as follows:

If we are firm in our beliefs and we know what we stand for then if the person next to us believes something radically different then it ‘phases’ us not in the slightest. If however our beliefs are secretly quite shaky and superficial then we either:

- become defensive or
- preach / convert others to remove disagreement so that we feel 'safe'

If one begins to see through this and the underlying bhavanaa, then surely it becomes impotent? Do we then begin to develop a kind of ‘psychological kevala’ an autonomy based upon a refusal to be pushed around by others’ ideas? This is not a rejection of principle or tradition, rightly understood. Nor is it advocating individual desire being placed higher than discipline. Autonomy means self-governance. Perhaps something that this individual has some work to do to achieve. But the ideal is recognised - become whole, allow others to do so according to their temperament, and 'move together'.

Read more

A Personal Wish-List for the School

This was sent to me by a former member, and I quote it with permission. The correspondent notes that since departing the School some of the items have been 'ticked'. What do you think of these suggestions? Do you have any of your own?

1. Groups meet less often - say, once a month. This makes them better valued, less taken for granted.
2. All attendance voluntary, with the proviso that if a commitment has been made to perform a service, it must be kept, for an agreed limited period which can be renewed as necessary.
3. Groups sit in a circle, with 'tutor' not set apart.
4. Students take it in turns to occupy the tutor position.
5. Abolish dress code!
6. Everyone to be thanked regularly and sincerely for a) attending the group, b) serving, c) anything else that seems appropriate.
7. De-segregate men and women. (Perhaps have occasional separate meetings to talk about boy things/girly things.) Appoint at least some female stream-heads!
8. Weekends. Each group to have one per year. For the second one, a list of weekend dates to be published, so that people could sign up for the one they would like to attend. Possibly the weekends could have a pre-arranged theme, so people could choose. Also publish the name of the person (stream-head) who would be conducting the weekend. Early birds get the popular weekends.
9. As a consequence of 8, everyone gets a chance to sample different stream-heads. They could then be given the opportunity to opt to become a student in a particular stream (subject to numbers not getting too great). (Rationale: it is normal for people to find a teacher, then decide if that teacher is the right one for them. The School just tells you: this is your tutor, this is your stream, these are your duties. This does not respect people's integrity and equality.)
10. Donald Lambie and the stream heads visit other teachers, not to become students or followers, but to learn from their methods and styles of presenting, and possibly to get fresh inspiration.

Read more

Tradition

HRH Prince of Wales

"...the teachings of the traditionalists should not, in any sense, be taken to mean that they seek, as it were, to repeat the past – or, indeed, simply to draw a distinction between the present and the past. Their’s is not a nostalgia for the past, but a yearning for the sacred and, if they defend the past, it is because in the pre-modern world all civilizations were marked by the presence of the sacred. As I understand it, in referring to Tradition they refer to a metaphysical reality and to underlying principles that are timeless – as true now as they have ever been and will be. And, by way of contrast, in referring to Modernism they refer to a particular (though false) definition of reality; a particular (though false) manner of seeing and engaging with the world that, likewise, is distinguished not by time, but by its ideology.

In an article written in 1983 for the traditionalist journal Studies in Comparative Religion, Professor Nasr put it this way:

When we use the term ‘modern’ we mean neither contemporary nor up-to-date… Rather, for us ‘modern’ means that which is cut off from the Transcendent, from the immutable principles which in reality govern all things and which are made known to man through revelation in its most universal sense. Modernism is thus contrasted with tradition…; the latter implies all that which is of Divine Origin along with its manifestations and deployments on the human plane while the former by contrast implies all that is merely human and now ever more increasingly subhuman, and all that is divorced and cut off from the Divine source.

Most especially, therefore, we can see that it is the very timeless quality of these immutable principles of Tradition that makes its teachings so timely.

(The rest of the article is thoroughly recommended - link below)
http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html

Read more

From Katharine Watson

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.

Read more

The real unanimity

What we need for the future of the School is, I believe, a different kind of unanimity. Thus far we have had a unanimity not only of action, but of thought. In other words, as members of the School we assent to certain ideas which are held to be part of "The Truth" or "The Teaching", and are thus beyond question.

The yugas, the five elements, the four aspects of the antahkarana, the three gunas, the division between purusha and prakriti, the unity of atman and brahman (that all organised itself very nicely, didn't it?) ... we could go on.

The point of calling into question the yugas is not to bring the whole edifice of The Teaching down about our ears, but to say that they are just ideas. Ideas are provisional mental constructions, and are therefore fully open to question by mental means, such as reason (of which science is an aspect).

What I would like to propose is that the unanimity we require is emotional. That's to say - we can be united in our hearts, while holding different theories or opinions about the world. Indeed, if we are going to have a real conversation, we need to be strongly united if we are not to be driven apart by our ideas into factions.

We cannot limit the operation of reason; but we need faith if we are to venture along the path of reason - faith that there is something to find; faith that we can live without dogma or concepts; faith that if we disagree then we can push on further, and not fall back on a facile conceptual unity.

It is not enough to say "all concepts are just concepts" and give up on thought. We are "man" - "the being who thinks" - and until we have the answers, we must question.

Read more