Often I am asked "whats wrong with scholar X that bothers you? I don't see him saying anything negative." Since this issue came up when a friend based in Singapore supported Phil Goldberg (despite my advice to the contrary), l want to say a few things.
There is content and then there is channel. Pls do not empower a channel with a separate vested interests no matter how goodygoody the content seems to be - this wont last. Thats the lesson I learned after close encounters with many such groups as Templeton, etc. Once a channel is established it has a life of its own that has nothing to do with how it got started. CIIS in California got started with the official charter stipulating that it was the intention to spread the ideas of Sri Aurobindo in the West. But after a few years what happened? I am glad Suneet Varma in his talk in CIIS will bring these points out to them. I have argued with their top mgmt for 2 decades on the way they replaced Sri A 100% with digested versions that are inferior, half baked, and include distortions. Sri A is classified as Level-2 in Wilber's scheme of levels of consciousness and he lists numerous Westerners at the higher levels with himself at Level-5.
What has happened to this channel which was started with good content at first? Indians are inept at understanding long term institutional control mechanisms. We can neither control many of our own nor understand the strategies used by others with great expertise in this regard.
Notice how a lot of the references in Wikipedia even on such topics as Shakti cite such sources as David Kinsley as authority; and the main publishing houses in the citations as US based with US editorial boards. Not that they are all bad in content. My point is different: Suppose I am debating on an issue where I find the representation flawed. I will be asked to prove my case based on "academic" citation, and these will not include works by our gurus unless certified by western academy.
Even a recent flare-up on Wikipedia concerning Swami Vivekananda involved our position being denied space on the grounds that what SV wrote is trumped by what academics (from the Neo-Hinduism school) have judged. So the judgment comes from those said to be equipped with "hermeneutics" which is the Western-Siddhanta and not consistent with our siddhanta. The rules are theirs, the referees who judge are appointed by them, etc. But we are most welcome to participate. Those who dont have experience going out of their confort zones and having such encounters simply lack the appreciation for what I am saying.
I am glad Jane Goodall was mentioned by Chitra in another thread today. Thats a good example of someone not writing "anything bad" about us. But now she is the expert and not our own adhikaris. So to make my case through a mainstream global forum I must cite her in support and not my gurus or lineages. Her writings are the filters I must pass through. Her followers control the gates of discourse.
If you dont understand how adhikar transfers over time even though the starting point seems to be "positive scholarship", pls remind yourself how inculturation works. Ask: Whats bad if the church preaches Jesus as long as he is in saffron, sitting in yoga asana, and the church has bharatnatyam classes, uses many sanskrit words to explain their teachings? Once you understand the answer to this question, then you can apply the same logic to the way digestions/uturns start off as positive engagements but end up with disastrous consequences.
The Columbia U event on secularizing our tradition is a tiny bit of a much larger canvas on which this war is being fought. I feel so sad when those I trust as dear friends and supporters one day surprise me with a switch of loyalties, and cite arguments in favor of channels that appear to be producing good content as of now.
My remedies: Please read Indra's Net on poison pills. Each teaching must include this as necessary ingredient. At Columbia event I want to speak on a few poison pills to should never be separated from yoga. Only after you get this will you understand why it was a bad idea in the long run to support Phil G. He is a nice guy but not rooted/invested in the tradition and this "opportunistic" career-driven success invariably ends up serving wherever the path opens up.
Regards,
Rajiv
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
