Is Knowledge Asserting or Negating?

The question arises with some regularity, "What is the Path of Knowledge?". I often hear it spoken of as implying that someone who enjoys study, acquiring various degrees etc is following the path of knowledge. Also, it is often rejected by those of a more practical persuasion as being mere 'information'. I feel that this is a misunderstanding as to what the path of knowledge actually is. Sure, study is an aid for all of us, but what is the actual practice of the path of knowledge?

The following excerpts are from "Sayings of Sri Ramakrishna". I find this helpful in being reminded what kind of 'knowledge' we are actually talking about. The second excerpt, though Sri Ramakrishna uses a physical analogy, I find similar to the "Catching the Chameleon" method. i.e, the observation and dropping of assumed identities. Would it then be necessary to assert anything? Seems that we are often subject to a whole lot more assertion than negation? 'Assertion' leads to accumulated conclusions, 'negation' to deeper consciousness as the identifications are let go. If the ahankara has adopted various accumulated conclusions or beliefs then, because of identification, it feels threatened when the beliefs are threatened. Ever seen this? What kind of behaviour does this lead to?



What is Jnana Yoga?

Jnana Yoga is communion with God by means of knowledge. The Jnani's objective is to realise Brahman, the Absolute. He says "Not this," "Not this" and thus leaves out of account one unreal thing after another until he gets to a point where all Vichara (discrimination) between the real and the unreal ceases, and Brahman is realised in Samadhi.

***

If a man knows his own self, he knows other beings and God. What is my ego? Is it my hand or foot, flesh or blood, muscle or tendon? Ponder deeply, and you will know that there is no such thing as 'I'. As you peel off the skin of an onion, you find it consists only of skin; you cannot find any kernel in it. So too on analysing the ego, you will find that there is no real entity that you can call 'I'. Such an analysis of the ego convinces one that the ultimate substance is God alone. When egotism drops away, Divinity manifests itself.

***

...if, on the other hand, the Truth is heard and understood intellectually but no attempt is made to renounce the unreal, of what use is that knowledge? Such knowldege is like that of the men of the world, and does not help one to attain the Truth. Or else a person may profess in mere words that the world is unreal and non-existant; but the moment sense-objects – colour, taste and the rest appear before him, he takes them to be real and gets entangled just like a man who verbally asserts that there are no thorns, but bursts out screaming as soon as his hand comes in contact with a thorn and gets pricked.

Read more

Control and The Will Of The Absolute

When I visited Cuba recently, it was brought home to me why Communism cannot work. Not for philosophical reasons, but because it gets in the way of people's natural creative impulses. A friend of mine had asked me to bring her some examples of Cuban graphic art, and I searched everywhere for postcards, posters, books - nothing. Eventually I met a man who worked for the Ministry of Tourism and asked him about it. He said, "Unfortunately, the Ministry is too busy running 280 hotels and so it cannot take care of details like this".

In a capitalist economy, some little guy would long ago have translated his enthusiasm for graphic art into a thriving business - supplying us all with its benefits, without any need for government to interfere. And indeed, as a 30-second search on the internet revealed, you can easily get the art of Cuba in a capitalist state. But not in Cuba. You can see why their favourite phrase is No es facile ... "it's not easy". They blame the blockade of the US for their problems, but I regret to say that the real blockade is Comrade Fidel.

Like the Cuban People's Revolution, the School cannot quite bring itself to trust people. Nobody actually says, "Whatever is not expressly permitted is forbidden", but the tradition of "Ask your tutor about any important decision" is a subtle version of the same thing - command and control. The assumption is that without tutorial supervision, people automatically descend to the lowest level. This may seem antiquated, but if anyone wishes I can cite many recent examples to show that tutorial control is alive and well in the School.

The problem with it from a spiritual point of view - and I do appreciate the value of a watchful tutor - is that there are many good things that one can't really explain or justify in words. That's the nature of creativity - you follow a quiet hunch, playfully almost. You don't really want to ask someone about it, or explain why you do it, because you don't know yet what it is. Oddly enough, this is the way the will of the Absolute happens: the will of the Absolute is in the avyakta, the unmanifested. By the time it's obvious, it's manifested. If you want to know the will of the Absolute, you need to take a step in the dark. You need to trust the self - your own self - and not someone else.

If you trust someone else instead of yourself, then you cannot realise the self. You cannot be creative. You cannot be artistic.

I have a question for the readers of this blog who are members of the School. I think it might bring up some very interesting avenues of enquiry:

Is there anything that you do or have done or would like to do that is 'spiritual', but for which you would not ask permission?

Read more

Not Blogging

It's been interesting to have a break from all of this for a week - firstly because very little seems to have happened, and secondly because I've found it something of a relief.

The blog has been getting fairly popular ... it's all relative I suppose but 700 visitors in July means "Free the Teaching" is, oh let's see, only about 500 times less popular than the one by that woman who details her sex life. But then I suppose the potential readership of School members is dwarfed by people who are interested in sex. There may even be some crossover there, who knows?

There have been far fewer people who have been prepared to participate - but my thanks so far to Na, Geedash, Gitalover, Son of Moses, Minerva, Kapila, Laura, and of course the ever-charming Anonymous -as well as to more occasional contributors.

My point of view has by now been fairly extensively published, and I'm not sure what else I have to offer. Perhaps it might be useful to outline the essential points. These are my personal beliefs and not intended to be authoritative statements of truth:

1. The School has not listened to His Holiness
This is the root of all our problems. We've listened to the words, but ignored the message, which is one of compassion and intelligence. This is because we wanted to hang on to our old Gurdjieffian habits - which are highly disciplined, but neither compassionate nor intelligent - instead of learning from a wiser and more venerable tradition.

2. We need to discriminate between what is customary, and what is essential
There are a lot of things about the School that do not make sense. They persist because we are sentimental about "our" way of doing things and refuse to examine it rationally.

3. We need to evolve a vision for the future
We need to do this together. In the days of Mr MacLaren it was done for us; but it no longer can or should be thus. The challenge is to dissolve the hierarchy so that we can speak as equals. Some people will mistake this for mob rule, but I would ask: is the School a mob? Or has it achieved something?

4. We have many natural friends in the world
There are many people 'out there' who are desperate for the benefits of philosophy. There are others who have significant wisdom and understanding and who could and would help the School in its endeavours. The general lack of interest in the School is not, on the whole, due to the shortcomings of others, but to our own.

5. The School is potentially the best thing in the world
I don't have any arguments to back that up, but that's what I believe and intuitively feel. Rationally speaking, there is a lot of work to do.

It would be good to hear what others think about these matters, and if anyone has other suggestions they should put them forward. This blog has always been a means to an end, and at some point it will cease to exist. Whether that's now or later depends on you.

Read more

Ways and means?

'For everything to stay the same, everything must change.'

Guiseppe di Lampedusa: The Leopard

Also away for a few days. Love to all.

Read more

We have all the knowledge we need

And what is good, Phaedrus? And what is not good?
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

- Plato, Symposium

I'm off for a week ... enjoy.

Read more

Catching the Chameleon

From Surging Joy
By Dr Sarada Nataragan

The mind, or the root of the mind, the "I"-thought, is as adaptable, as malleable to protect its own existence as any specimen of the physical universe. One could even say that the mind is more flexible. The chameleon only changes color, a horse its coat of hair, but the mind is capable, in time of need, to change its entire identity, name, form and all. The mind has the great advantage over the natural world of having no fixed shape to call its own, thus, it can take on any shape. There is no limit to its techniques of camouflage, no ceiling on its defence equipment...

The "I"-thought hides itself in numerous guises. It may appear as the subtle ego of achievement, the satisfaction of self-control, the ego of intellect, the pride of devotion, the complacency at progress, even the pride of humility. The ego is adept at assuming the form of every activity and every non-activity. When "active" it attaches itself to the spirit of activity, it revels in being quick, efficient. The danger is greater, not less, when the activity is rendered as service to the Lord, for, then the ego could take the subtle aspect of being His servant, there could even arise an ego of selflessness. If there is non-activity, the ego wallows in its sense of detachment, in its ability to stay without activity.

..there is one weapon the ego dreads...the weapon of self-enquiry. And, surely though perhaps gradually, it retracts, retreats inward towards its source. It does not suffice, therefore, to use this weapon of self-enquiry once in a blue moon. At every turn the ego must be pursued with self-enquiry, relentlessly. Its every posture, every mask, must be stripped off by constantly questioning it. Who is it that is serving? Who is it that is active? Who humble? Who detached? Who efficient? Who creative? Who is this I? For every identity that the "I"-thought assumes it must be countered with the attack, "Is not this also an identity? Then who is the "I" at the root of this identity? Who am I?" Attention must be constantly focused on the root of the "I"-thought, attempt ever be made to isolate it and turn it back to its source. All its disguises must be unearthed, ferreted out, smoked out as bees from a hive until it remains absolutely alone, and unable to withstand the scrutiny, falls headlong back into its source, the Self.

Read more

HM Loyal Opposition

One of the issues that is bedevilling my own participation in this blog - and I'm sure I'm not exceptional in this - is that the School's culture does not include the idea of a useful opposition.

If we are to have evolution not revolution, there needs to be proper and equal space given to the voices of opposition. At the moment, any expression of opposition is the same as calling for revolution, which I for one would be horrified at.

All we have now are questions. The student can ask a question, and then "press the question", supposedly all the way to the Shankaracharya. In practice, this means little if the recipient of the question is not interested. I've watched people in my own group "press a question" for several years, but the decision as to whether to take it further is not based on the satisfaction of the student - as perhaps it should be - but with the satisfaction of the tutor. If the tutor believes that the student's question is "not useful", or "coming from ahankara", then even to allow it airtime is wrong. Eventually the student gives up.

The announcement recently about dress code was greeted by one member of my group with te words, "What took it so long?" The tutor's answer was that some other younger groups had "pressed the question" - in other words, it was our fault for not doing so. Doh! When the School eventually reforms itself, you can tell that the very people who dug their heels in for years will be blaming the students for their tamasic failure to press hard enough.

So, given that this mechanism of asking questions doesn't work very well, I would propose that we adopt a system similar to our Parliamentary democracy (that should keep the traditionalist wing happy), whereby the Head of State (the Queen) is symbolically served by her government and by her loyal opposition. I'm not sure who the Queen is in this set-up - maybe the Shankaracharya, or perhaps the Teaching itself. Or maybe it's the School leader. It would be nice to think of the leader as being an impartial figure, not defending or opposing anything.

There is a certain amount of pain associated with posting on this blog, probably because one occupies a position that many will regard as treasonous, and yet almost every day there seems to be something that needs to be said. I wish there was another way to do it, but for now there isn't.

This blog is, so far as I can see, the least bad way to practically explore the issues that face the School with a wide group of people; but it would be better if we had democracy. If we did, we could take the conversation off-line.

The problem with democracy is of course that "the people" are ignorant and led by their whims; at what point does the School decide that it's done its job of education and forming character, and give its members the respect and responsibility of having a voice?

Read more

A System in the Conversations?

An important issue was raised by Gitalover recently, and I think it's worth examining. This is part of a comment on the "In response to Gitalover" post:

I recently embarked on an exercise of trying to discover traces of Shankara's system in the Conversations and was surprised to find little systematic unfoldment. (Mrs Jaiswal made the identical observation last week, adding that LM kept hopping from topic to topic without following through. She then threw down the challenge to find the System reflected in the Conversations and draw the threads together. My study so far (up to 1980) not much luck - apart from a rich vein on the steps of knowledge and devotion in 1974, and valuable nuggets about the 4-fold sadhana in 1980).

Two other senior men have also embarked on this task which I believe is key to freeing the Teaching. It is a valuable exercise. I recommend it.

If the aim, however, is to 'free the teaching' whilst preserving the SES as the future channel for it, then I may have misunderstood the motive for this blog. I accept the SES as a great prep school, but have come to see that whilst it maintains it current social agenda as the driving mission, then it is unlikely to be more than that. If, however, a systematic teaching in the Conversations can be uncovered, and the school re-connects with a realised teacher that can guide it practically, then who knows what's possible...

I'm not going to attempt to answer the questions raised here fully, because I don't really have an answer at the moment. Some personal reflections would be useful, however, at least to me.

Whether or not there is a system within the Conversations, I don't know. However, when I'm reading them what engages me seems to be something different to Gitalover. My assumption about His Holiness is that he is part of a tradition - according to Mr Jaiswal recently, "a very orthodox tradition". So, when he is explaining about the nine elements, or the stages to realization, or about sanskara, prarabdha, kriyamana etc, I am not uninterested but I think that this is very much "lower knowledge". These questions are explored systematically in other texts.

Here we have - it seems to me - an enlightened being. To listen to him recite the various aspects of vedantic orthodoxy is a bit like having an audience with Nelson Mandela and asking him to explain the technicalities of South African traffic law. I'm sure he could do it very well - maybe better than anyone else - but what I would really like to know about is his unique experience. We might cavil about the questions that were put to His Holiness, but the real point is to look at what we have.

What I have found in studying the Conversations is a connection with His Holiness' voice and message. To find that connection it's been necessary to remove from my perception so far as I can certain false assumptions that I already had, many of them picked up in School. Examples would be:

- self-realisation is a kind of competition that only the elite who follow millions of disciplines perfectly can hope to win
- obedience is the highest virtue to which I can aspire
- 'the world' is an evil place
- the School offers protection
- philosophy is about believing certain things to be true
- "I'm not good enough"
- If it hurts it me it must be because my ahankara is hurting
- If it's not working, it's because I'm not working
- Feelings are irrelevant
- Thoughts are useless

Whether the School has to be preserved as a channel, I haven't got that far. What I've found is that hearing the words of His Holiness without these kind of ideas playing in the subsconscious has been totally transformative. Personal study has been useful, but what really makes the difference is weekly Conversations sessions with a little group of like-minded people.

I can't go very far with this on my own. I don't know how far it does go, because I haven't had the opportunity to find out. The hope in setting up "Free the Teaching" was that I could get the message out that we don't have to keep kow-towing to ideas like those I've listed. My view of the School right now is that it's mired in tamas - either the tamas of students who suffer silently without realising why, or that of senior people who keep on with something they don't believe in, hoping that somehow it's going to work out all right, while looking around for an exit door. Where's the love, guys? I think the energy of MacLaren kept a lot going, and that energy had both positive and negative aspects. The danger now is that the School collapses out of a sheer lack of vision - just folds under the weight of its own inertia. Who knows - maybe that would be a good thing - but so far as I'm concerned it's unlikely.

What I've found since starting this is that there are people out there who have somehow preserved their purity, despite the mixture of good and bad influences about. It's been a joy to connect with these people. But I would never condemn anyone, or give up on anyone. My assumption is that everyone is naturally free, and that these tamasic shackles can just fall away if they get enough good influences.

Here's a quotation from my study today: "character building concerns parents and teachers much more than it concerns children. So the elders must behave in exactly the same way as they expect their children to behave." This is typical HH ... he throws the responsibility on the teacher. The School, as you may have noticed, throws the responsibility on the student: "if there's a problem, that's your ahankara, you must practice more".

When are we going to stop telling people lies such as that? When are we going to listen to the truth?

Read more

Psychology

Listening Orientation

In reflective listening, the listener (i.e. tutor -k) adopts what Rogers called "the therapist's hypothesis". This is the belief that the capacity for self-insight, problem-solving, and growth resides primarily in the speaker (i.e. student -k). This means that the central questions for the listener are not 'What can I do for this person? or even "How do I see this person" but rather "How does this person see themselves and their situation?"

Rogers and others have made the underlying orientation of the listener more specific by noting that it contains four components: empathy, acceptance, congruence, and concreteness.

Empathy is the listener’s desire and effort to understand the recipient of help from the recipient's internal frame of reference rather than from some external point of view, such as a theory; a set of standards, or the listener's preferences…

… empathy is the listener's effort to hear the other person deeply, accurately, and non-judgmentally. A person who sees that a listener is really trying to understand his or her meanings will be willing to explore his or her problems and self more deeply.

Empathy is surprisingly difficult to achieve. We all have a strong tendency to advise, tell, agree, or disagree from our own point of view.

Acceptance is closely related to empathy. Acceptance means having respect for a person for simply being a person. Acceptance should be as unconditional as possible. This means that the listener should avoid expressing agreement or disagreement with what the other person says. This attitude encourages the other person to be less defensive and to explore aspects of self and the situation that they might otherwise keep hidden.

Congruence refers to openness, frankness, and genuineness on the part of the listener. The congruent listener is in touch with themselves. If angry or irritated, for example, the congruent person admits to having this feeling rather than pretending not to have it (perhaps because they are trying to be accepting). They communicate what they feel and know, rather than hiding behind a mask. Candor on the part of the listener tends to evoke candor in the speaker. When one person comes out from behind a facade, the other is more likely to as well…

Concreteness refers to focusing on specifics rather than vague generalities. Often, a person who has a problem will avoid painful feelings by being abstract or impersonal, using expressions like "sometimes there are situations that are difficult" (which is vague and abstract), or "most people want…" (which substitutes others for oneself). The listener can encourage concreteness by asking the speaker to be more specific. For example, instead of a agreeing with a statement like "You just can’t trust a manager. They care about themselves first and you second", you can ask what specific incident the speaker is referring to.

In active listening, it is important not only that the listener have an orientation with the four qualities of empathy, acceptance, congruence and concreteness, but that the speaker feel that listener has this orientation. Consequently, a good listener tries to understand how the other is experiencing the interaction and to shape their responses so that the other person understands where they are coming from….

(edited - see link for full excerpt)
http://www.analytictech.com/mb119/reflecti.htm

Read more

Too Intellectual?

Bringing the discussion back to the central purpose of this blog, i.e. how well does the school's approach reflect the tradition? I question whether the school's approach is too intellectual. I do not suggest mushy thinking should be promoted and I think there needs to be a rigorous approach to prevent this. But I see, not just myself, but also others get turned off by material that seems to get overly wordy and complicated. In a group a while ago some material was presented about reason. The response of a lady in the group was, "this is just words". I felt she was accurate and was exercising the faculty of reason in her observation. i.e, to see the truth or falsehood in something. The explanation was not the reality of the thing. From this observation, the conversation was able to turn to something more real: what, practically and experientially, is it that knows true from untrue?

This approach is rigorous, not rigorous in trying to express an encapsulated definition accurately, but rigorous in asking, "Are these words real for me right now?" If we are to keep the flame alive, this question must be asked constantly.

The danger seems to be with an overly intellectual approach that it denies the wisdom to all but the intellectual elite (if it is in fact wisdom). There are many supremely gifted and qualified people in the school but do they speak in a way that allows universal access to the teaching? Jesus spoke in parables that could be understood by children, but which wise men could also see deep significance in. He was also known to have had the occassional dig at the learned.

Another question that can be asked: is there a subtle form of isolation going on amongst the scholars? If you use terms and words that only a minority can understand is this to mark yourself off in some way as having special knowledge that no-one else has? An intellectual code that only the intellectuals can unlock?

Sri Ramakrishna was illiterate. Sri Ramana Maharshi flunked out of school. Krishnamurti was described by one of his school teachers as being dreamy and in another world most of the time. I question whether it is a mistake to think that 'refinement of mind' has anything to do with experience of the Self. Some, in fact, say that it is a barrier.

Read more

In Response to Gitalover

I think there are some interesting points in your last post, but continue to have reservations about the underlying tone. I should explain what I mean about that.

The aim of this blog is to "Free the Teaching" ... ie elucidate what the teaching actually is, discriminate between that and extraneous elements in the School as it is, and re-imagine how the School could be, now and in the future. That requires an approach of steady, clear-eyed optimism.

In your post “Winning or losing the argument” you gave some useful definitions of three kinds of argument, and I think these could well be applied to your most recent post, and to other remarks you’ve made. “Proving your opponent is unfit to be discoursed with” might be a good description of what you’ve just done here, with your demonstration that the School is not concerned with philosophy at all, but with economics. Or take your comment on the "Society or Sect" posting, in which you alleged that the School is not a school because it has 'members' not students. I don't happen to think that's a very strong argument, but more importantly than that I would observe that it doesn’t take us anywhere new.

So, you think there are inconsistencies in the way the School is organized? You think its principles are unclear, its practices confused? You’re not really making headlines here.

You speak – so far – with bitterness. I would ask you to look at your motivation here – is it care for the welfare of the School and its members? Or annoyance at what you perceive to be mistreatment received by you and others? If the latter, there is as you know a web site where you can air your views, maybe cathartically. Having said that, some people from that site have found their way here and in my view they have acquitted themselves admirably.

I am sorry to rebut what you are saying so robustly, but it seems to me that if we proceed as you're doing, we won't go forward. We are not here to defend the status quo, or to attack it. If this blog becomes a point-scoring exercise I will close it down.

The criticisms you offer so far are – rather like those of the lovely Goldschmied circa 1996 – just the other side of the Old Skool coin. For my part, I still think you have more to offer than that.

In recent weeks I've begun to feel that this blog is developing a great deal, with strong contributions from a number of voices. That means that it doesn't depend on any one person, and that we're going to have to find the direction together. This is part of the conversation.

But what do others think of what's been said here by me, and by Gitalover?

Read more

Society or Sect?

The following excerpt is from Rudolph Steiner speaking about the Anthroposophical Society, of which he was the leader:

It would be utterly senseless to ask: "What do you anthroposophists believe?" It is senseless to imagine that an "anthroposophist" means a person who belongs to the Anthroposophical Society, for that would be to assume that a whole society holds a common conviction, a common dogma. And that cannot be. The moment a whole society, according to its statutes, were pledged to a common dogma, it would cease to be a society and begin to be a sect....It may be asked: "Who are the people who come together to hear something about anthroposophy?" To this we may reply: "Those who have an urge to hear about spiritual things." This urge has nothing dogmatic about it. For if a person is seeking something without saying, "I shall find this or that," but is really seeking, this is the common element which a society that does not wish to become a sect must contain.

Read more

Is Socrates a blogger?

How about looking at what constitutes traditional philosophy? When we talk about the tradition or the teaching - what do we really mean? What's in and what's out? What's its purpose? And why should we bother getting up in the morning?

Again, what is the School's role in teaching or in passing on traditional philosophy? Is it fulfilling this role? If it's hampering rather than helping -in what way does this show itself? And how may it be rejuvenated?

Lastly - and I personally find this of interest - is there nothing since the Renaissance (or Shakespeare/Mozart) that can't be pressed into service?
There have been a number of observations and quotes on this blog - from Emerson to William Isaacs - which have illuminated dark corners and given pause for thought. Or are we talking about method here rather than content? And is there any difference in truth?

If Socrates had been born today would he have been a blogger? Or would he have been drummed out of his group for asking awkward questions?

Read more

Handy Blogging Instructions

I've added some tips for Blogging beginners. Click on "Read more!" below ...

How to read comments
Click on the "Comments" link below the post. It might say "2 Comments" to indicate the number of previous comments. These are remarks made by viewers and members of the blog who have thoughts on the topic raised.

How to make a comment
Click on the "Comments" link below the post. On the right, you will see a window "Leave your comment". Write the comment in there.
There are 3 options below. If you have a Blogger account, select the first button. You can enter your username and password and it will appear below the other comments with your ID attached. Or you can select Other and enter a name or alias (no need to create an ID). Or you can select Anonymous.

How to get a Blogger account
The aim of the Blogger.com site is to encourage people to create blogs (ie web-logs) of their own. This can be a bit confusing if all you want to do is add comments. But it's free and simple. Click on the Blogger link at the top left of the page (or go to www.blogger.com) and follow the instructions - it takes 5 minutes. You don't need to actually do anything with the resulting blog, and nobody can see your personal information.

How to become a member of Free the Teaching
Email kevin@caburn.eclipse.co.uk and Kevin will send you an invite. You need to follow the link (once only) and accept the invite. If you have a Blogger account already you can sign in, if not you have to create one (Sorry!) Then your Blogger ID (your alias) will appear on the front page of Free the Teaching, and you can make new posts of your own.

How to add a post
This is a tiny bit confusing. You need to visit www.Blogger.com (click on the Blogger link on the top right). Then you enter your username and password. Now you should see "At the Crossroads" and a + sign next to it with "New Post". Click on the + and away you go. You can delete or edit it if you don't like the results.

Email kevin@caburn.eclipse.co.uk if you have any problems.

Read more

Simplicity itself

This is how a seed 'loses' itself to become a mighty oak. Simple but quite profound. I felt in need of simplicity. Perhaps you do too.


At a conference on education, Satish Kumar said : We should not see ourselves as individual, wrapped up in ourselves and all our emotions.
The acorn lets go of itself, its ego, its separate individuality. It can only manifest its ‘oak-ness’ by letting go of itself and by being buried in the ground.


Just as we can only find ourselves if we let go of our separateness. The acorn contains the oak.

Read more

A Great Beast Approaches

Namely a 4-day festival of the finest Arts and Crafts.

Someone told me the other day that the generation of people who started Art in Action had come to believe that it would just stop when they gave it up. Over the past couple of years, however, the jobs have been getting handed over gradually to a younger generation. It remains to be seen whether the transition will be successful. Will there still be tea?

What surprised me, though, was that these people really thought they were indispensable. Whatever happened, may I ask, to "ahankara must go"?

Paradoxically, the culture of total obedience, discipline, and "work until you are told to stop" (or "drop") ends up with some people believing all the more that they are essential to the process. Of course, for the true devotee who serves without question, there is no egotism. The problem afflicts far more those who have to think and be creative.

This is what we see in the generation that has more or less run the School for the past 20 years. They are impressive, powerful, charismatic individuals, who believe, underneath it all, in their own impressive and charismatic individuality. Looking at them one does not believe, "I could do that" but, "Wow! What a Special Person. So different from little me."

There's nothing wrong with people being "big beasts", except when their bigness comes from keeping other people in their place. The culture of belittling students is what feeds what some call Great Man Syndrome. The poor students get so befuddled that they are actually grateful for this. If you're just a little 'un you need some protection.

Actual greatness, on the other hand, makes you feel big. It makes you feel equal to itself, and indeed to anything.

It's ironic to see that the Big Beasts have been for some time floundering in pessimism and self-doubt. Unable to imagine a future without themselves, they keep up appearances until the last minute ... slip behind the velvet curtain ... and engineer their own disappearance in a puff of smoke.

Well, thanks for everything guys.

Now ... anyone for philosophy?

Read more

Open and Shut

One question that might be asked about this blog is whether it is an appropriate way to have this conversation. Leaving aside issues of the benefits of face to face conversation, the tradition of the group, etc., it could be that it's just an alien approach.

William Isaacs talks about organizations with 3 kinds of structure: closed, open and random. The internet is a classic 'open' system: including everyone, democratic, uncontrolled, collaborative ... its drawback is what he calls "the tyranny of the process" ... that is, when you have started an open-structured discussion, there is no obvious end point, and there are no bearings.

This is his analysis of a "closed" system:

Core purpose: Stability through tradition and lineage
Characteristics: Hierarchy, formal authority, "control over"
Leadership: Manages for the good of the whole
Limits: Tyranny of tradition, blindness to emergent change

He cites an example of a corporation run by a "single, bright, autocratic leader. All major decisions ... flowed through him. Nothing of any consequence could be done without his knowing about it." The company employed 20,000 people. Those who reported to him would get "yelled at" and "whacked" if he was displeased. He goes on, "The impact this CEO had on the other senior leaders of the organization was nothing short of devastating ... the central limiting factor of a closed system is that it tends to be blind to and unable to move with emergent possibilities. Its values are embedded in the well-established traditions of the past; in a pinch, it is to these values that the organization remains loyal rather than new options".

That sounds like a pretty good diagnosis; the question is whether the School can be changed at all by "open-system" methods. Possibly it's just too alien to that mentality. There are plenty of people who are unhappy with the School; but most of them are unwilling to do anything about it. Instead, they cling on to the old values, even when they no longer believe, because loyalty is in the blood. It's one thing to have a rebellious chat in the pub, to establish one's revolutionary credentials, but to contemplate a re-assessment of the values and practices of the School ... a bridge too far.

Read more

Unclog the Blog

This weblog has been running for about three months (see archives on right) and after a slow start it has gained in popularity - currently it gets about 100 visits a week and 500 page views. About a dozen people have summoned up the courage to contribute, and have overcome the technical challenges of blogging. But just think how much more interesting it would be if we could involve more people. It's all very well me banging on about my pet theories, but there are plenty of other points of view out there. One of the most pleasing things to see is the recent posts from Laura and Geedash, and the lengthy submissions from Son of Moses, Mumukshu and the ever-charming Anonymous.

One of the issues that the School has to face at the moment is its inability to talk to itself except in official 'meetings'. This has the effect of legitimizing those official meetings, and what is said in them, while outlawing points of view that are not expressed in them. The 'outlaw' thoughts don't go away, but they become a source of guilt and concern, instead of what they could be - the germs of the future of the School.

There is an idea that somewhere the decisions about the future of the School are being made, but it's not so. There is no smoke-filled room where these matters are debated on our behalf.

Should we be concerned about this? No. We are waking up to a different possibility, which is that we are all adults, and that we can decide together about the future of the School. Nobody is going to do it for us. We do not need permission: it is a duty of every one of us to consider these questions, hold them up to the light of reason, and come to a view on the way forward. The best way to do this is to speak to each other, using all the means at our disposal.

We are not without guidance, and not without strength. His Holiness has given us enough advice for the 21st Century, we just need to listen to him without our old-School prejudices. He did not tell us to use force or harsh criticism, but the opposite. He did not tell us to crush the ahankaras of the students, but to encourage them with "tender advice, showers of love, and sometimes a little hard discipline." There is nothing there to be ashamed about - it's common sense, mostly. So far as discipline goes, we have a really good basis for spiritual work. We should stop worrying about it, and decide what is the next needful step.

To help with this, please can you think about who among your friends would like to blog. Send them an email, or better yet give them a call. This is not about washing the School's dirty linen in public (there is a place for that, if you want to do it), but about a constructive dialogue. It's a sign of health to be able to talk, converse, hold a dialogue, entertain different points of view. So far as I can tell, this is what our present leadership would like to happen, though there seems to be uncertainty about how to get there. Maybe this conversation could be a starting point.

We need to invite others to take part. The more of us there are, the healthier the dialogue.

Read more

Plato's Plodders

It's good to know that the School gets some things right. What is right is the necessity to power and illumine theory with practice. This really sorts out the fireside theorists from the practitioners at an early stage and continues to be the lodestone of all that we do.

I was reminded of this as I walked home from Mandeville to Hammersmith last night. Earlier in the evening I'd walked to Mandeville - a round trip of 9 miles. I'm in training for a 17-mile charity walk in September initiated by a member of my group - we're walking the route of the London Circle line overnight. Our walking group is called Philosophers and Friends, although we did appreciate one suggestion - Plato's Plodders.

Walking is such an everyday experience that it's easy to forget what a passport it may be. Is there any truth in the saying, 'It's better to travel optimistically than to arrive?' We may find out.

What this walk demonstrates to me is that - unless there is a powerful reason otherwise - it is better to say 'yes' to all that presents itself on the doorstep. To embrace life, if sometimes foolishly, opens a window. To say 'no' is to shrivel and diminish. To say 'yes' allows growth.

Satish Kumar, the philosopher, ecologist and editor of Resurgence, walked from Delhi to London via Moscow. I forget the reason why. All I can think of is the enormity of that walk.

Yes, it is a metaphor - otherwise why mention it? But it sings with other recent observations noted here. Jaiswal last week said that if one limitation dissolves there'll be another one right behind it. Don't we know it! If my little right toe (now rather sore) gets better will I get a corn on my left foot? Who knows? The walk's the thing.

Read more

Humility

The material we are getting these times often has a very liberal quality to it. Yesterday evening it was a question-and-answer between the Study Society and His Holiness on the theme of giving knowledge. One question was something like, "we want to give the knowledge, but until it's natural it comes across as 'we know'". HH responded that it was good to try to understand as thoroughly as possible before teaching, but that one should not try to get it perfect, but just give whatever one has. In the process, the teacher learns more than the student and so continues to have something to give. One of the group remarked that often in saying "I don't know ..." an answer to a student's question seemed to show itself, "... but, it seems like this ..."

Humility, so late in the day. I suppose that is what the parable of the vineyard is about - it really doesn't matter how long it takes to come to the spiritual work. So long as you do, the years of folly are forgiven.

Worldly reparations may still, of course, be required.

Read more