anyone interested in REAL philosophy?

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

anyone interested in REAL philosophy?

Postby grobchok » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:25 am

It seems to me that a lot of the value of this Message Board is for people to air their feelings about the past. That is certainly useful and people can be very isolated either in or just out of the SES. I can sympathise, having been through all the possible emotions and thoughts about it. I am a current member and have been for many years and I fully acknowledge all of the bullshit that has gone on.

I feel that having come through all that I am now pretty much immune to the crap. The main problem was that the SES used to offer to save your soul if you gave up your personal ego, but of course couldn't deliver. I now realise that the way to save your soul is to give up your personal ego, but that no person or organization can do that for you. The SES is certainly mellowing a lot - see the recent post by the guy doing the course in London in the Spring - but the main point is that there is an acknowledgement that miracles will only happen - and they CAN happen - if individuals put in the work. The SES then becomes transparent and incidental, which is as it should be. All that cult stuff is a nightmare.

A recent comment by someone in a group I was in about the second term's course on happiness was: "When people asked me before how I was, I would always reply that I was fine, but inside I would be thinking what a liar I was, because of all the problems in my life. Now I still reply that I'm fine, but I believe it. The problems are the same, I still have to deal with them, but I now understand what it means to be happy. And I am happy."

In other words, with clear thinking you can sort your life out. That's not someone saying "the SES did it for me". It's someone who has found their own inner strength.

So what I would like to know is if anyone is interested in real philosophy. I have an inkling that many of the people that visit this board might be more into it than a lot of the people I meet in the SES ... :Fade-color

This might be an unlikely post for what is an anti-cult message board. But what the hell.

TB

Postby TB » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:17 pm

Hallo grobchok,
I will go a few rounds with you, once you tell me what discussions you think make up 'real philosophy'. I will begin by discussing the leadership change from McLaren to Lambie around the mid 90's that you mention in another of your posts.

Do you have a sense of why the school appears to be changing under the leadership of Lambie? I am looking beyond the simple difference of two leaders, given that McLaren handpicked his successor I assume they had much common ground. I also believe that he was chosen in preference to others from the original starting group(s), something that must have rankled a few wannabe heirs. Is it possible that the school needed a leader that dictated and drove people in its early days? (I never met McLaren but by all accounts he seemed something of a tyrant - I met Lambie who, while he did not mince his words, did seem more progressive). Once the school matured, a new style of leadership might be required to take it to the next level. McLaren, apart from recognising his own mortality, might also have seen this and acted accordingly. This same process is visible in business where entrepreneurs often step down (or get shafted) to allow different leadership as they mature.

Linked with this, holistic society has changed, people entering the school have been less obedient to authority figures, etc and might have forced change by voting with their feet. The church's view of women priests, homosexuality and contraception all bear witness to social pressure to adjust.

Cults (no baggage intended) seem to collapse when they lose a charismatic leader, while SES appears to have kept going as before in terms of influence and size (not sure about the specifics here). If this comment disqualifies SES as a cult, and therefore squeaky clean, this is not the point I am trying to make. I also have no intention of heating up the emotive baggage in the 'cult' label. (This is a plea not to turn my comment into a cult bashing discussion, there are others for that).

Does this topic qualify as 'real philosophy', I do seek the truth in it? Follow it if you wish or offer something different.

Your style seems blunt enough, so I have high expectations, it's over to you for comment please.

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

Lambie issue

Postby grobchok » Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:57 pm

Dear TB

I can't really comment about why Donald Lambie was chosen, but I will say that I knew MacLaren in his latter days and although I can imagine him being rather tyrannical, he had a lot more to him than that. Of all the people he might have chosen, he didn't go for people who were more in his mould - ie, charismatic, opinionated, mercurial. Lambie has always been a more mild type.

When he came into the position he addressed a meeting I attended in this way: "Mr MacLaren is dead. Shantananda Saraswati is dead. Each person here now has to be Brahman for his or herself." In other words, he declined the role of "cult leader". That's not to say he is weak. I think your impression sounds right - he's a strong person who doesn't necessarily want to force his will on someone else. After what I would believe to be a shaky first couple of years he has lived up to the early promise.

Anyway - this is all politics so far as I am concerned. The point about the current management is that it wants people to take the lead themselves, which sooner or later leads to the question - what are we going to do? Yes, there are still hangovers from the old regime, but anyone who is now in the school and still harping on about it clearly has issues that are preventing them moving on, because big changes have happened. Lambie is rewriting the material at the moment and it really is excellent - liberal in the best sense.


Short of time right now ... but real philosophy is to do with "love of wisdom", which is to say it is wisdom pursued with mind, body and heart as with someone or something that you love. It can't be confined to the academic sphere; nor can we dismiss the intellectual, as the SES has done, due to insecurity.

This discussion is I hope just beginning ...

TB

Postby TB » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:20 am

Hallo grobchok,
Thanks for your comments. I am heartened to hear that Lambie appears to be taking the SES teachings to a new level. In spite of the negative press and ill feelings toward the SES, I think the essence they seek is positive. I think that people (from inside and outside) politics that got in the way, caused most of the negatives. That said, I have not been with the school since 1998 and left without apparent stigma. My comment about McLaren being a tyrant was not meant as negative, despite the connotations of the label, perhaps it was appropriate at the time for the school, as Lambie might be in the current climax.
As to your comment about this all being politics, I would say the process of politics arises from people striving for control over their material destiny, and wherever people gather in groups larger than one, it exists, and will stifle genuine desire to move beyond a material destiny - like a search for the truth. In my view it is probably the single most powerful force that exists if we leave aside the power of seeking the truth. I see that politics arises from our biological drivers, in our attempts to survive in a material world. We need freedom of action, and this means competition between people as well as the forces of nature. This ego driven, political process, we find in the office, in religions, in government, in the SES, we see it all over this internet forum as opinions clash (mine too) as biology seeks dominance.

You mention 'love of wisdom' as being of the goal of philosophy. It's a profound comment and not easy to break it up into bite sized chunks. I am OK with SES view on 'becoming' as a path to this. I am also OK with intellectual discovery. Let's consider objective reality and how well we perceive it. I say other animals also find a objective view of reality very relevant to their survival. Have we (as animals) taken this baseline 'truth' and dolled it up into human speak, or has something altogther different arisen from objective reality? If objective reality arises from biology, chemistry and physics only, then anything distinct probably comes from a divine source? (my reasoning). Without divinity we are left pretty much in a purely material world with only objective reality - I seem to be talking myself in a number of corners here, because I find myself saying "so what" - so I will stop and submit this for comment and question.

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

love of wisdom

Postby grobchok » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:19 am

Hello TB

Love of wisdom isn't easy to chop up, as you say. "Wisdom" comes from words meaning "knowledge" or "insight" (wid) and "judgement" (dom), which suggests a process of making judgements based on either good information or real insight.

As to "objective reality" I think one of the problems we have in the West is our preoccupation with this essentially scientific ideal. There are two aspects to it. The first, which is I think quite valid, is the idea that there is a larger 'objective' reality that we strive to get an understanding of. The second, more questionable in my opinion, is that this equates to the 'objective' material world.

This question has been worked through in both the Eastern (Indian) tradition (about 1500 - 2000 years ago) and in the Western tradition (European philosophy from Locke onwards). This is how I understand its progression:

1. Naive realism - we believe that the world perceived by the senses is 'real'. This, we suppose, is what animals 'believe'.
2. Qualified realism - there is some relation between the world perceived by the senses and the world painted in the mind from sensory data, but it is a correspondence rather than an equivalence.
3. Idealism - the mind is real; the 'objective world' is unreal.
4. Illusionism - neither the mind nor the world are wholly real or (to some) wholly unreal.

So where does this leave us? Essentially, all we have is our subjective experience. We cannot 'get at' the objective, but we can work to purify the subjective, to cleanse the gates of perception as Blake has it. Wisdom is not a bunch of statements to be learned, but a state of being, a wise subjectivity.

This could be seen as becoming more 'objective' in the loose sense of letting go of one's own preferences and allowing the larger reality to prevail. Whether or not we call this reality divine is not the most important question. What is important, I think, is that we experience it.

TB

Postby TB » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:23 am

Hallo grobchok,
Thanks for your post, I think we have a discussion we can get our teeth into. There is much of your post that I agree with, both in content and overall approach, however I will limit my response to that which I either am not clear about or disagree with.

The two aspects of a) the "larger objective reality" and b) the objective material world, you question if these equate. You then position some historical views of philosophers. I am mostly unfamiliar with their work so will do some research. I am not clear as to why you question the equating/correspondence? There is surely a relation between the larger objective reality and the material world, and perhaps a difference? I cannot see the relevance in making this distinction.

I accept that in this objective reality, science does much, in extending our senses, notably into the cosmic and quantum worlds where we are reduced to theory rather than sensory evidence. However, I do experience this reality (subjectively) through my senses long before we had science. In spite of the fallibility of my senses, which as you say we can refine, and the philosophical arguments around the existence of matter - an objective reality can exist. As an aside, I do not want to debate the existence of matter on this forum - so can we take that as given?

Once we refine our senses, our awareness and our being more clearly sees this objective reality.

I see the above falling into the naive or qualified realism camps (perhaps I will scrub idealism and illusionism off my reading list) and would argue that animals that do not have such a refined sensory system get eaten or fall off cliffs, and so do not appear in future generations. Natural selection has ensured that subjective and objective reality needs to be fairly congruent, or at least more so than the next gazelle.

I do not call this divine, I call it mechanistic nature, something we share and presumably inherited from primate ancestors, who go it from the ...primal bogs.

As you say it is important to experience it, survival has demanded it over the ages of life itself. But it leaves me without an answer to my question on divinity, a force I am open to in spite of socially constructed deity existing.

If there is a divine presence I expect the experience of this to be something different from the objective reality above.

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

more subjective views

Postby grobchok » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:54 am

TB

I am not saying that there is no "objective reality", or that there is no material world. What I would say is that there is no certainty in our knowledge of the material world, because the means by which we perceive it are flawed. Equally we have no certainty about our inner experience. So I think what I have called the illusionist position is a good one, when you think about it. Sceptical but positive. It does not say that the real is not there, but it casts doubt on our assumptions that we can reach it by ordinary means.

I take it from your postings that you have an interest (thirst for?) something that provides some more stable basis for understanding. In other words, for truth. The progress of philosophy has repeatedly shown that truth cannot be determined objectively - ie scientifically measured, put into words, set in stone - that, in essence, it remains mysterious and unquantifiable. That, I would also submit, is what makes it always worth aiming for.

If truth is always beyond grasping, it does not follow that it is impossible. But it does mean that truth which is worth pursuing is so because in finding it a human being realises its full potential. If one were to design an instrument for the discovery of truth, it would be a human being. As I said earlier, that has to be a whole human being, not just the mind. Also, it has to be a particular human being, and it could be any human being. You or me.

TB

Postby TB » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:00 pm

Hallo grobchok,

Thanks for the response, I thinkyour first para expresses well my view on this as well, though I was unable to capture it as well as you did. So we are 'adwaita' on this.

The rest also makes sense except the comment upon "always beyond grasping, but not impossible" unless I take this to mean that we can only realise it as a total being without actually bringing it to a point we can proofread, publish and sell it. If so, I agree. As you know the SES positions realisation of the Absolute as being just such a process, in which which we become one with the Absolute. I presume you accept this teaching?

I think your point about a human being the mechanism through which truth will be realised, is well made. From a logical standpoint it pretty much answers my question about a reality beyond that objective one sensed by any life with senses, although it does not prove or explain it. The Hindu religions, through reincarnation, state (I think?) that the human being is solely designed to fulfill this final step to realisation. Humanity is then, in spiritual terms, the pinnacle of life's evolution?

Thankyou for that, intellectually and verbally, I am replete.

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

Postby grobchok » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:19 pm

TB

Me too - comes a point where you have enough of thinking and talking. Your interpretation of what I was trying to say is quite right.

I wouldn't say I accept SES teaching on anything, though. A principle of the School is supposed to be "neither accept nor reject" what you hear there ... I think you have to work with that. Acceptance is what happens in a religion. Or a cult. It's tempting sometimes, but it's not really such a comfort as people think.

I've enjoyed our exchanges - thanks.

Christoph

I've been the SES for twenty years

Postby Christoph » Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:19 pm

There's a lot of very interesting discussion around the subject of the SES. I've been in the School for twenty years but one thing I've learned is: you get out of it what you're prepared to put in to it. One of the theories is that 'service = happiness' which I've always treated with a certain degree of lazy scepticism. Funnily enough, on the occasions I've thought 'ok, time to have a go myself', it's proved to be true. It's healthy for me not to obsess over my own personal interests once in a while.
The main thing that's bugged me over the years is the white-middle-class character of School. You just don't see working class blacks! Not in England, at any rate. Not that there would be a problem, of course, it's probably the image of the SES that attracts the white professionals in the first place. But bearing in mind what I've got out of it (a lot), I wish it were more 'Everyman' in its approach. And from what I hear, that's exactly how it is New York. So there's hope yet.
As for the teaching, it's moved away from Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, which is where I came in, and now it's pretty much all Advaita Vedanta, though with a strong sprinkling of Plato, Marsilio Ficino, and let's not forget Mozart and Shakespeare! I've never been forced to believe anything I'm told, but I would also have to say that the 'drip drip' effect of constant exposure to Advaita, can subtly modify your belief system over the years. Not that this is a problem in itself, of course. Only fundamental evangelical Christians (Muslims/Jews), would find it hostile to their own beliefs, but they are notoriously inflexible and dogmatic anyway. Advaita seems to consist of two main aspects: the theory (a lot of which I take on trust until I can verify it - or not - in my own experience), and the practical, which - like Buddhism - has direct and beneficial impact on daily life, or so I and many others have found.
To those who say it's a cult which causes mental problems and family break ups, I can only reply that in twenty years I've yet to see it. Maybe it was more true in the 1970s? I only encountered Leon McLaren once, towards the end of his life, and he seemed mellow enough at the time. I have heard stories though... I was lucky enough to be tutored by Tom Gerry, a pint-drinking Yorkshireman with no time for 'airy fairy nonsense' and a very down to earth attitude to philosophy. He always emphasised the 'practical' side of it. Sadly Tom died in 1991.
This is in danger of turning into a memoir and that wasn't my intention at all. But just because I'm in the SES doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to talk philosophy with other people. For instance,
"the nature of God now that physicists have hypothesised eleven dimensions to handle superstring theory."
Anyone?

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

Postby grobchok » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:52 am

Your point about "service = happiness" goes to the heart of it, really. You don't know until you try for yourself. You could say the same about all spiritual experience. The simile of a bottle of whiskey is often used in this context. Reading about something like the SES on this discussion board is like reading the label on the bottle. What it isn't like is drinking the stuff! Personally I don't like whiskey, but that's having tried it.

"the nature of God now that physicists have hypothesised eleven dimensions to handle superstring theory."

I am not very keen, personally, on the argument that physics at its outer edge is having to acknowledge God. Throughout history there has been an area of "unknown" forces - magnetism, electricity, gravity, atoms, etc. - and there has always been a big temptation to imagine this unknown realm as spiritual. Just as magnetism has been explained, I feel sure that quantum physics will be too. Whether there are four or 64 dimensions, they are all, from the point of view of science, physical. Vivekananda, who died just over a century ago, said that there are two sources of knowledge. One of them is science, and deals with things by looking at them from the outside. The other is what he calls the Veda, ?that which is known through the subtle, supersensuous power of Yoga?, or in other words that which is known inwardly. I cannot see that there is any bridge between these two.

Vivekananda again: ?only the man who has actually perceived God is religious ? religion is not in books and temples. It is in actual perception?.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Re: I've been the SES for twenty years

Postby adrasteia » Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:29 am

Christoph wrote:The main thing that's bugged me over the years is the white-middle-class character of School.

I know what you mean!

Christoph wrote:I've never been forced to believe anything I'm told, but I would also have to say that the 'drip drip' effect of constant exposure to Advaita, can subtly modify your belief system over the years.

I would say anything you are constantly exposed to will effect you and your belief system in many ways. Living in a different country, a long term relationship, following a particular philosophy.
I suppose the thing to do is choose wisely.

Christoph wrote:To those who say it's a cult which causes mental problems and family break ups, I can only reply that in twenty years I've yet to see it.

Well it's not broadcast, although the Ses grapevine is very good! But yes, it still happens in various ways.

Christoph wrote:"the nature of God now that physicists have hypothesised eleven dimensions to handle superstring theory."

I suppose we have to bear in mind that it is only a hypothesis.
I'm not sure it does change the nature of God -although I claim to know next to nothing about the subject- it's rather like seeing another side to him. But my understanding of the superstring theory is very small!

erikdr

anyone interested in REAL philosophy?

Postby erikdr » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:26 pm

On
"As for the teaching, it's moved away from Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, which is where I came in, and now it's pretty much all Advaita Vedanta, though with a strong sprinkling of Plato, Marsilio Ficino, and let's not forget Mozart and Shakespeare! "

I'd tend to doubt strongly. First on the Ouspensky vs. Advaita dilemma, which seems to be on same level as it was in the long time I served the SES in the eighties:
* Originally (sixties) School indeed came to Ouspensky from economy, and only years later the Sankaracarya came in.
* The lower classes (first 5-7 terms, until initiation) are mainly Ouspensky based, the higher ones where you are actually in are mainly Vedanta based in the material.

BUT what most SES people gladly omit is that also in the higher classes, and the whole approach, there are a few elements which are 99% Ouspensky and contribute largely to its cult-like dimensions:
* Secrecy about teachings (even to one's own family)
* Obeying the Guru (--> tutors) at almost all cost.
Both can NOT, repeat NOT, be found in any form in mainstream Vedanta in India and in the West. Yes of course in Indya there is following of a guru but it's a personally selected one with real mutual contact, and not the SES-appointed tutor which has to be followed no matter what.

Secondly on the bringing in of Greek/Italian sages and wellknown artists. Well actually this is common Advaita/Hindu policy, to try to include as many thinkers as possible 'in their own system' and by quoting selectively proof that 'well actually they said same as we after all'. But the problem is that by choosing other quotes from those same thinkers and artists, they could as well be used to show support for totally different doctrines - e.g. conservative Christianity, or full Atheism, or libertarianism. So be careful with this. Yes, on some level spoken all spiritual traditions are One and have things in common. But on other levels there are clear differences, and anyone 'claiming' the legacy of deceased teachers is IMHO on a quite slippery path....

With folded palms,

<Erik>
(Now follower of a different spiritual tradition than SES...)

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

Re: anyone interested in REAL philosophy?

Postby grobchok » Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:06 am

erikdr wrote:On
BUT what most SES people gladly omit is that also in the higher classes, and the whole approach, there are a few elements which are 99% Ouspensky and contribute largely to its cult-like dimensions:
* Secrecy about teachings (even to one's own family)
* Obeying the Guru (--> tutors) at almost all cost.
Both can NOT, repeat NOT, be found in any form in mainstream Vedanta in India and in the West. Yes of course in Indya there is following of a guru but it's a personally selected one with real mutual contact, and not the SES-appointed tutor which has to be followed no matter what.


I think you are probably speaking about the 80s here, although I think your analysis of how it was then is probably very good.

1. when the SECRET CULT book came out (1986 I think) there was a big push to demystify. As someone said at the time, "we can't do much about the 'cult' label, but we can at least not be secret." I joined in 1987 and I have never been told to be secretive. This is ridiculously out of date.

2. Obeying the guru. I haven't heard this one in a while either, although I suppose there is still a whiff of it about. Personally I do not ask permission to do things these days and attendance at meetings etc is my responsibility; this has not caused me any trouble. I am a member of a senior group in London so there is no question that this is the present policy of the organisation as a whole.

erikdr

anyone interested in REAL philosophy?

Postby erikdr » Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:43 am

Okay, I cannot comment on 'obeying the guru' because I've not put recent questions about this to my friends who were in SES Amsterdam up till 2002. But I can comment on

"1. when the SECRET CULT book came out (1986 I think) there was a big push to demystify. As someone said at the time, "we can't do much about the 'cult' label, but we can at least not be secret." I joined in 1987 and I have never been told to be secretive. This is ridiculously out of date. "

It might be out of date for UK but definitely not for Amsterdam. (Well for the 'Eeghenlaan fraction', as one might be aware there were at least 2 fractions claming the same SES (SvF) name plus a 3rd one using a different name. Upto 2002, my friends got the instructions from the tutors to be very low profile and never give direct answers to outsiders as to what was happening inside SES/SvF. As my point was, a typical Gurdjieff characteristic and quite far from mainstream Vedanta...

With folded palms,

<Erik> - The Netherlands


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests