Postby Rumpelteazer » Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:18 pm
As requested at the Sunday meeting (20th June 2010), here is the excellent response sent in by email from Norman W who was unable to attend:
HH says "There is only one knowledge and that is of Unity" so I see the function of the Society's 21st century teaching to make that knowledge of unity (i.e. Advaita or non-duality) available. He also makes clear Advaita is not exclusive to Northern India or anywhere else. So I believe we should encourage people to read and partake of all non-dual teachers and teachings that they find helpful (much more Advaita teaching has become available in the West and people such as Nisargadatta have thrown new light on what HH has already told us.) Not everything can be presented in groups but nothing should be excluded - it's up to people to decide for themselves what rings true in their own experience.
In and out of the Society, it seems to me, there is some conflict of ideas about Advaita at the present time. In the past few years the situation of the 'non-progressive' aspect of the Advaita teaching has taken central stage - possibly because it is timely that it should do so. But this is not something that should be presented as A BRAND NEW DISCOVERY ! It isn't; it's in all the non-dual teachings already. HH refers to 'ladders' and a seemingly 'progressive path', but he also points out whenever he can, that paradoxically, there is no 'path' and we are 'there' already ! (i.e. "Realisation is not something we are aiming at").
Advaita explained this paradoxical anomaly years ago with the illustration of the two thorns - you can use one ignorance to dig out a bigger ignorance and only then are both thorns thrown away. Dr Roles told a story of three men sitting on a grassy bank with a high wall behind them. One man climbs the wall, collapses on the top with laughter and falls down the other side. Only when the third man climbs the wall does he get the joke - THERE IS NO WALL ! Paradoxically it seems you have to climb the wall to find out there is no wall. It's no use just sitting on the grassy bank because you've been told that there is no wall. If you do that, you are what HH calls "A slave pretending to be free." (If this aspect of Advaita is mis-applied, it doesn't give clarity - as some claim but utter confusion in my opinion.) Christ taught "Seek and ye shall find". You get nowhere if you insist "But who is there to seek and what is there to find" ! (even if this is actually the case from the highest viewpoint !)
There is such a thing as 'right effort' - perhaps best defined as an effort to make no effort. This quote from Dr Jean Klein advises:
"You must leave behind you the idea of improving. There is nothing to be found, nothing to achieve. Searching and wanting to achieve something are the fuel for the entity you believe yourself to be." Then, however, he goes on to advise: "Be simply aware of the facts of your existence without wanting change."
There is not a 'progressive path' that is wrong and a 'non-progressive path' that is right - or vice versa. Advaita is both - and it has always made plain that both aspects apply according to the situation being addressed. (i.e. the thorns).
The Study Society is a small School of the Fourth Way (a Way that embraces other Ways.) I think it will inevitably reflect it's historical background but it has demonstrated in the past that it can be open to the new influences of living, evolving Advaita (i.e. Maharishi and HH). I don't think it should have any hint of it's own dogmatic line. It's overall purpose is to promote 'good company'. Any material / papers produced should be viewed as providing 'good company' and not as 'educational'. I think that with the exception of very early introductory groups, any papers should not try to 'educate'. In terms of three forces any material could be considered 'passive', the group response 'active' and the group presence itself 'neutralising'. Groups could decide for themselves to what extent they use 'papers' or other material.
I don't believe there is a specific Advaita teaching slant for the 21st century. Advaita is for all centuries. It will mould and adapt itself to suit new situations if we stay open and do not try to 'angle' it in any particular way. A lot of good people are already doing a lot of good work keeping this good company available. Let us try to see the importance of keeping the school open, available, and free from any dogma. Schools with strong charismatic leaders are often not necessarily desirable, they can end up as cults ! In my youth I happened to experience one !
In my reply, I queried Norman's point about the purpose of groups being 'good company' rather than 'education', as follows:
A key question, partly alluded to in your response, is what are groups for? Is it just 'good company' or should it be something more? Paper 3 of this set consists mainly of questions like this for discussion within the groups. There are certainly a few of us - maybe not many - who feel we do need more. We need answers to questions that make sense in a practical way rather than being just dogma, ideas on how to transform knowledge into real understanding through practice and observation, reminders about what we need to practice and encouragement to do so. For me, at least, all these are essential for "climbing the wall" and could be considered part of 'education'. In that sense, I feel 'education' would be necessary until one becomes fully realised (although whether that comes through 'material' or through interaction within the group is a separate question). After all, Dr Roles continued going to visit HH and asking questions.
Norman added the following points in a subsequent email:
I have no points of difference with anything you say. My talk of the 'good company' aspect of group material may misrepresent my position. My reservation in relation to 'educating' papers ' is that it can be a bit like 'the blind trying to lead the blind' but there's obviously education and 'education' and if we can educate ourselves more in groups on the need to put the teaching into practice and thereby get more genuine personal real observations, I believe it must be worthwhile. Dr Roles used to say in relation to the Manduka Upanishad "Now come on you frogs - GET JUMPING !"
We all have different psychological make-ups and it seems to me we are stuck with them in the same way we are stuck with the shape of our noses. But does it matter if we are predominently intellectual or devotional as long as we try to be sincere, determined and open - with pots up the right way perhaps ? Neither approach can be 'wrong' and both are part of Advaita - as one of your quotes from HH makes clear.
I'm in favour of practicality in the 21st century. If our structure needs more young people for its maintenance I would be in favour of heavy advertising. Also many good people leave the SES every year; I would try to let them know that the Study Society door is open.