On Feb 27, 2009, at 4:10 PM, claudiouk wrote:
One aspect of MMY's teachings that seems hopelessly "unenlightened"
to me was his take on democracy, which he saw as socially devisive
and irresponsible. For instance he talked disparangely about the
Labour Party in the UK, believing that mere "labourers", totally
uneducated, were running the country.
Yet some of his key political ideas seem oddly "democratic", eg:
(1) Government = reflection of collective consciousness of the people
(2) Ideal Society = self-governing individuals, attuned to Natural Law
I saw a video today where MMY again attacked democracy and praised
the Vedic division of society into four groups on the basis of birth -
albeit in terms of Jyotish rather than socio-economic class. The
whole thing just grates with me - also the gender divisions
increasingly apparent in the Movement.
Just wondering what FFL participants make of all this (sorry if it's
been discussed before..)! Is it possible to argue the case for a
VEDIC Democracy?
In regards to the gender divisions, I'll share a post from another
list, it's about not being able to express negativity, and being
institutionally pathological about not even acknowledging the shadow.
I have much more respect for someone who can embrace their shadow and
the collective shadow. Those gurus who refuse to acknowledge a shadow
and present themselves as "shadowless" are always the ones we have to
worry the most about. Of course if you're ignoring the marginalization
of the feminine in your org, that's a real dead canary in the coal
mine for me:
It's interesting, because I have much more respect for those who can
share their triumphs...and their failings, with at least some approach
towards equanimity and then towards action. Avoidance of parts of life
as "negativity" that cannot be spoken just seems so counterintuitive
to me now.
Jack Kornfield tells the story of meetings he helps convene yearly
which are meetings of various Buddhist teachers, from all the great
schools. On one particular year, it was held at the residence of Dalai
Lama in Dharamshala, India. The topic was Buddhism in the modern
world, and the difficulties they encountered. The room was filled with
teachers whose teachings and actions had given benefits to thousands
and thousands of people. They spoke of their great successes and their
joy in being part of them.
But then it came time to speak of their problems, their failures and
shortcomings. It became clear that spiritual life is not entirely
harmonious. There were individual struggles and there were individual
neuroses. There were areas of prejudice and areas of blindness.
One woman in particular pointed out how difficult it was to simply be
female or to express feminine wisdom in the Buddhist community. She
pointed to all the beautiful statues and paintings that filled the
room they were in...and how they were allmale.
Then she asked all those in the room to close their eyes to meditate
with her and to imagine they were entering the room anew, but that
they instead bowed to the 14th female Dalai Lama. With her were
advisors who had always been female. Surrounding them were statues and
paintings of beings, all in women's bodies. Of course it was never
taught in the teachings that there was anything lesser about being a
man. Despite that the men hung out on the periphery and when
everything was over, it was their job to clean and cook.
At the end of her meditation, all the men opened their eyes, somewhat
astonished. Then, Ani Tenzin Palmo, a Tibetan Buddhist nun who was
raised as the daughter of an English fishmonger and who had trained
for 20 years--12 of them in caves on the Tibetan border--spoke. In her
gentle voice, she described the spiritual longing and the incredible
hardships of women who can only remain on the edge of the monasteries
happenings, often without teachings, food or support.
When she finished, the Dalai Lama put his head, in his hands...and
wept. He pledged his foremost support to revise the place of women in
his community to one of more equality.
There was no sense I got from Jack's story that these experiences
needed to be shunted or avoided somehow. Instead they were embraced in
such a way that they could move forward. That's not to say that
everything somehow miraculously changed, but at least the fuller
reality was acknowledged as much as possible.
In my current way of seeing things, it's hard for me to imagine any
real evolution taking place without such earned equanimity. It would
be impossible for me to respect a teacher who could not also embrace
this everyday paradox that is our condition.
