|
|
|
|||
|
| the relevance of the Master (For Songster) |  | ||
| Forum | |||
|
Hi Songster Having just read your exchanges with Jonx I was left to reflect on your view that "having completely rejected Maharaji as my "master", I find that the mechanism of practicing "Knowledge" delivers precisely the same "experience" that it did when I was deeply devoted to Maharaji." How can it be precisely the same experience if it no longer has the very critical element of devotion in it? Jonx can correct me if I am wrong but I would say for most premies what they call "experience" of Knowledge is 'meaningless' without devotion to Maharaji. Forgive me for saying this but you remind me of a football fan who claims he has the 'same' experience as before even though he no longer supports a team. All genuine fans know that the real joy (and pain) of being a fan comes from supporting a team and not just from 'watching' football. Football is about devotion and so is (Maharaji's)Knowledge. Let me also say that I enjoyed your lucid and intelligent arguments and hope that Jonx will respond to you in kind. Talking about the relevance or otherwise of the Master I would like to recommend a good read : "Lessons of the Masters" by George Steiner. Writing in "Lessons of the Masters" ("When we talk about education today, we tend to avoid the rhetoric of 'mastery' with its erotic and inegalitarian overtones. But the charged personal encounter between master and disciple is precisely what interests George Steiner in this book, a sustained reflection on the infinitely complex and subtle interplay of power, trust, and passions in the most profound sorts of pedagogy.".. from the blurb on the back cover..) Steiner admits " True teaching can be a terribly dangerous enterprise. The living Master takes into his hands that inmost of his students, the fragile and incendiary matter of their possibilities. He lays hands on what we conceive of as the soul and roots of being." Remarkably but not surprisingly the relationship is not confined to Gurus and their devotees, "the material defying any comprehensive survey, being truly planetary." Although his survey concentrates on the Western tradition nevertheless the ingredients are very much the same as in Eastern traditions including love, trust, betrayal, destruction, and of course at the very centre the charismatic Master. " When I teach, I throw out the seeds, I wait to see who grabs them...Those who do grab, those who do something with them, they are the ones who will survive. The rest, pfft!" This, as it happens is not a quote from Maharaji, Rajneesh or Sai Baba but from Nadia Boulanger, the French musical genius of early 20th century. Going back to Maharaji and Knowledge, some would say and have said that all there is to the "experience" of Knowledge is devotion and this is why Knowledge cannot 'work' without the Master. This devotional method of teaching although still very popular in the East has limited appeal in the West (hence the disappointing response). If the eastern methodology promotes 'lifelong' devotion and acceptance, for George Steiner to teach greatly is " to awaken doubts in the pupil, to train for dissent. It is to school the disciple for departure." Being a teacher himself for Steiner it is a 'frivolity' to teach without "great apprehension, without troubled reverence for the risks involved." As someone who practiced devotion for three decades and seen the consequences I believe the risks are much greater in a teaching which directly or indirectly encourages dependence on the Master.
Modified by bulent at Thu, Sep 15, 2005, 11:23:20 |
| Previous | Recommend View All Current page | Next |
| Replies to this message |
|
