Dialogue Ireland Trust press release

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Dialogue Ireland Trust press release

Postby mgormez » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:15 pm

This was sent to me:

PRESS RELEASE

FROM DIALOGUE IRELAND TRUST
DIALOGUE IRELAND Phone: 353 -1- 8309384 or mobile 353 - 87 2396229
7/8 Lr Abbey St; Dublin 1
Web site http://www.esatclear.ie/~dialogueireland
Charity number; CHY 14004
*************************************************************************


In an article in this week's Irish Catholic newspaper Fr Martin Tierney, a regular columnist questions the media's reluctance to cast an eye over the activities of the School of Philosophy and Economic Science. Fr Tierney queries the highly expensive advertisements promoting philosophy classes. He questions the qualifications of the lecturers, and suggests that there is present a level of deception that is inappropriate. Its advertising promises a course in Practical Philosophy. The reality is that the course is a mechanism for the delivery of a particular philosophical system.
Fr Tierney notes that, "in 1981, for example, a student in England complained to the Advertising Standards Association that the "philosophy" on offer in the introductory course was nothing of the sort". According to Tierney 'hundreds of Irish people enrol in these courses expecting a course in main-line philosophy, delivered by competent and properly qualifies lecturers. I am afraid that is not what is delivered."



Fr Tierney also asks how is it that the Hindu background of the School and its origins are seldom if ever made available to intending students. Mike Garde, of Dialogue Ireland, claims that, "for years we have been challenging the School of Philosophy and Economic Science without success. At the very least the public deserve to know in what they are enrolling and what they can expect to receive."

According to Fr Tierney, 'the School has a perfect right to teach whatever it wishes within the law. It is the deceptive nature of its advertising to which I object.'

The School of Philosophy and Economic Science*
IRISH CATHOLIC FR MARTIN TIERNEY
APRIL 21, 2005
From time to time prestigious advertisements appear in our daily newspapers advertising courses organised by The School of Philosophy and Economic Science. Many people enrol in their classes believing that they are attended a course taught by established philosophers. They know nothing of the School of Philosophy of Economic Science or its origins. They take on faith the 'bone fides' of the school, willingly handing over their hard earned money. Hardly any other 'academic' institution in the state could afford the cost of the advertisements placed in the daily papers. What surprises me is that media people, who pride themselves on their investigative skills, have seldom cast an eye over the School of Economic Science. What a gullible lot we are!
Should you enrol, and many do, you will not be told that the 'lecturers' are volunteers. You will not be told that they hold no philosophical qualification. You will not be told that practically the same 'lecturers' are delivered worldwide from prepared notes. In 1981, for example, a student in England complained to the Advertising Standards Association that the "philosophy" on offer in the introductory course was nothing of the sort. Two years later, the London Evening Standard ran a series of articles, which claimed that the SES' influence over its members was far from benign. Unless one has some prior knowledge of the normal content of more traditional philosophy courses, nothing will appear out of the ordinary. It is quite possible to arrive in the classroom for the first lecture, having seen only a newspaper advertisement for the school, where it is not made clear that it is a philosophy that is on offer. Indeed, many of the students are not aware that they were not getting a traditional philosophy course. That is one of the main complaints I have with the School. It is a free country and one is entitled to preach any gospel subject to public order and the law of the land. However, I am convinced that a truly ethical approach would give the history of the movement; the personalities involved in its foundation, and a clear description of the course content and the credentials of the lecturers.
The story begins in Glasgow in 1883 with the birth of one Andrew Mac Laren, born to Irish Catholic parents. From an early age he displayed artistic talents and was accepted as a student at Glasgow School of Art. However, his real passions lay in the field of the arts, politics, economics, philosophy and history. He moved to London and in 1914 joined the Independent Labour Party. In the mid 1930s he started a group called the School of Economic Science. He handed over control of the School, now called the Fellowship School of Economic Science, to his son Leon, whose control of the school became total in 1947. Throughout the 1950s the movement remained small and tightly knit, without the subtle regimentation which exists today. Leon was convinced that the only way to change the world was to transform the nature of mankind itself. His studies led him to twentieth century 'mystics', Greek Armenian, George Gurdhieff and a Russian called, Pyotr Ouspensky. They claimed to possess ancient knowledge handed down through the ages. It is said that the School of Philosophy and Economic Science consider itself the last in the long line of esoteric schools, which have safeguarded the secret of immortality. The man who was to provide the real impetus to the School was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who became famous as meditation master to the Beatles. The Maharishi taught a system called Transcendental Meditation, which he believed would eradicate all disease and violence in the world if only enough people would take it up. The School of Economic Science was to play a role in introducing the Maharishi to the British public. The links between the School and the Maharishi are usually kept under wraps and few who attend the School would be aware of the links with Hindu mysticism. Later the School split with the Maharishi.

* In some editions of the Irish Catholic and article on the new pope is published instead of this article

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:02 pm

Interesting!

The School of Economic Science was to play a role in introducing the Maharishi to the British public. The links between the School and the Maharishi are usually kept under wraps and few who attend the School would be aware of the links with Hindu mysticism. Later the School split with the Maharishi.


At my first meeting with David Boddy last year I took the opportunity of asking him about the influence of the ridiculous Maharishi (AKA the Giggling Guru) on the SES. He denied any connection. He was keen, however, to name-check the former 'Shankaracharya of the North' (Sri Shantanand Saraswati). Despite several attempts, I've been able to find out very little about this particular godman.

rachelS
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:30 pm

Postby rachelS » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:34 am

Yes, there was definitely a connection between the Marharishi and the school in the sixties. I think it was before he became involved with the Beatles. I've talked to several people who met him.

NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

meditation and the Shankara lineage

Postby NYC » Fri May 06, 2005 5:38 pm

Hello Tom Grubb et all,

David Boddy may ?deny any connection? with the Maharashi, but the SoPP (and I would imagine the SES) still recognizes TM initiation. I was chatting w/ a tie-wearing student at the break the other day, who said he was initiated in TM in the 1970s and that the SoPP told him as long as you remember the mantra you were given by TM, you do not need to be re-initiated at the School. I thought that was pretty funny, since the mantra is going to be a one-syllable word like ram or aum, and all you do when you meditate is repeat it over and over! so if you have forgotten it, well I just don?t know.

Since initiation costs a week?s salary, the School is not collecting money it could be taking in by accepting initiates in the TM lineage. This says to me that the School is more interested in gaining adherents than simply generating revenue. I am not defending the School?s abuse of children or the current smug attitude of hypocrisy, just pointing out that the adult School does not seem financially exploitative to me. (How honestly & appropriately the School deals with rich elderly people might well be another matter.)

The Tie-Guy did not say (and I didn?t ask) if there is supposed to be any secrecy about the mantra you are given at SoPP as in the TM system. I do see the value of paying a week?s salary and not telling your mantra to anyone; it is quite difficult to maintain a meditation practice over time, and if you have made a significant financial investment it?s a way of keeping yourself to it, ?well, I spent $300 (or whatever it is) on this mantra, I might as well use it.? And meditation is also easy to TALK about but not actually DO, so I see the value of not repeating your mantra to someone else. That said, it sems that some organizations misled people into thinking that they were being given a unique mantra attuned just to them, and the reason not to tell it to anybody was really because everyone the same age had the same one.

Anyway, I?m writing about meditation at length because while I find it EXTREMELY challenging to actually practice, I don?t see how it could harm a person if he or she freely decides to do it. This is quite different from forcing children to meditate; I can imagine that would feel very repressive and very much like mind control. Please understand that I am defending meditation, not St. James/St. Vedast.

Tom, I?m sure you already have this info on the Sankara lineage & Shantananda Saraswati, but I though I would post it here anyway for others. I quote from a devotional website, not the one you mention on the ?Whatever happened to Shantananda Saraswati?? thread (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/ ... ascii.html,) but the info seems the same.

Shankara (date controversial but generally ascribed to 8th century) is traditionally said to have established four mathas or peeths(monasteries) representative of the geography of India, with one monastery in the southern city of Sringeri (in Karnataka state), one on the eastern coast, on the Bay of Bengal in Puri (Orissa state), one on the west coast, in the city of Dvaraka (Gujarat) and the northern one in Jyotirmath (in Uttar Pradesh, in the Himalayas.) Each monastery is also traditionally associated with one of the Vedas.

Of these four, however, Sringeri is the only institution that claims an unbroken line of succession from Shankara. The other three mathas have experienced an interruption in succession at various times for various reasons. And according to http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html the longest break in the line of succession was actually in the case of Jyotirmath, where the seat lay vacant for around 165 years (approx 1776 until 1941).

In 1941 Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati re-established the Jyotirmath as ?an important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India. When he passed away in 1953, Sri Shantananda Sarasvati succeeded him at this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a dispute regarding the capacity of Shantananda for the title and also about the validity of this will. This resulted in a major controversy that remains unresolved.? (http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html)

The website Tom mentions, www.ucl.ac.uk, repeats the rumors surrounding Brahmananda?s apparently abrupt death -- that he was poisoned and that some thought Shantananda Saraswati had something to do with it because he was not the obvious choice to take over leadership and seemed overeager for the job. However, Shantananda was never charged with murder, and there are not the kind of allegations against him you would expect to follow a religious leader who gains his position by killing his predecessor. Anyway, the Shankaracharyas of the other mathas disputed his ascension.

?Swami Karapatri, a well-known disciple of Sri Brahmananda, was asked to take over the Jyotirmath title, but he declined. To resolve the dispute, a?committee of pundits from Varanasi was formed?and?Sri Krsnabodhasrama was appointed as the new head of the Jyotirmath. When he passed away in the early 1970's, he nominated Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati, another disciple of Sri Brahmananda, as his successor. Sri Svarupananda continues as the Sankaracarya of Jyotirmath, and has also been in charge of Dvaraka since 1982.?

So - the secular courts of India recognized the will as authentic and gave leadership of Jyotirmath to Shantananda. However, the spiritual leaders of the other mathas in the Shankara tradition, [the four which are known as the Amnaya mathas] named Svarupananda as leader of two mathas, the northern one, Jyotirmath, and also Dvaraka in the west.

??Shantananda Sarasvati?is said to have retired in 1980, in favor of his disciple, Sri Visnudevananda Sarasvati, who has since passed away. Sri Shantananda also passed away in December 1997, and has been succeeded by Sri Vasudevananda Sarasvati. Thus, there are at least two separate lineages at Jyotirmath currently, although it is Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati who is endorsed by the other amnaya mathas.

There is a third ascetic, named Sri Madhavasrama , who is another claimant to the Jyotirmath title, who contests both the claims of Svarupananda and Vasudevananda. Madhavasrama is a disciple of Sri Krsnabodhasrama, who was nominated to the Jyotirmath title in the 1960's. His contention is that Svarupananda cannot be accepted as the head of two different amnaya mathas (Dvaraka and Jyotirmath), so that the Jyotirmath title has to revert to another disciple of Krsnabodhasrama. According to publications supporting his claim, he was anointed in 1993 or 1994, under the guidance of ?the former Shankaracarya of Puri [the eastern matha]. Thus, the dispute between two parties for the title of Jyotirmath Shankaracarya has now become a dispute among three different parties.?
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html

This website also provided postal addresses for the three swamis claiming the title Shankaracharya of the North, and the mail address for the monastery itself:

Contact Addresses:
Sri Sankaracharya Math, Joshimath, Badrinath, Uttar Pradesh 246 443, INDIA.

Swami Svaroopananda Saraswati: Sri Rajarajeswari Mandir, Paramhansi Ganga, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 002, INDIA.

Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati: Shankar Math, Allope Bagh, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 211 001, INDIA.

Swami Madhavashrama: Sri Keshav Ashram, Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh 249 401, INDIA


Tom, if you are interested maybe you could write to these guys and ask them directly what they think of Shantanada Saraswati. I have a feeling what you are looking for is dirt on Shantananda, and often competitors can provide good criticism although they won?t know or won?t give the whole story. For example, when the School of Practical Philosophy teaches about utilitarianism in Part 2, they give an effective statement of criticism, of how utilitarianism can go wrong, but they don?t accurately represent the philosophy. Madhavashrama and Svarupananda may be able to put into words very well how Shantananda failed as a teacher. I find the idea that Shantananda was unqualified to be Shankaracharya pretty likely, look at the schools and how ineffectively he taught Maclaren. Also, some of the little stories used in the evening course which are attributed to Shantananda emphasize passivity and devalue justice in a way I have not experienced with other philosophy schools teaching /promoting advaita. Here?s a link to one such story we were told in the adult school:

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=275

Finally, I just want to point out that the SES website does not currently describe Shantananda Saraswati or the man cuurently in the seat, Vasudevanada, with the ?Shankaracharya of the North? title. The authors of the London website seem aware that the title is controversial. However, on the ?Art in Action? webpage, a more careless writer does say ?When meditation was offered to the West by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi it was eagerly taken up by Philosophy students in the School and in due course led to contact with the late Shankaracharya of the North - a man of immense wisdom who was one of the spiritual leaders of India until his death and who offered guidance to the School for over thirty years.? http://www.artinaction.org.uk/sponsors.html

The websites for several satellite schools, such as the one in Wessex and Australia?s also identify the School?s Indian contact as ?Shankaracharya of the North? without mention of the controversy over his recognition.

Finally, the Indian secular courts are being brought in to this succession dispute once again ? Vasudevananda has charged Svaruppananda with theft. This from http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/29god.htm, an Indian on-line newspaper on March 29, 2005.

A god man, claiming to be the Shankaracharya of the Jyotirmath Peeth in Badrinath, has accused another Shankaracharya's followers of stealing from the monastery premises.

Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati on Tuesday said followers of Swami Swarupananda Saraswati stole ornaments of Goddess Purnagiri and silver utensils when the Peeth was under a lockout.
Vasudevananda said a first information report has been filed with the Joshimath police station?Vasudevananda alleged that the decision of the local administration to declare a lockout at the Peeth was 'politically motivated' and at the behest of Swaroopananda.


So the conflict continues.

NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Postby NYC » Fri May 06, 2005 6:06 pm

PS Here's more on the succession conflict, from http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=109561 another online Indian news outlet:
Six injured as followers of two seers clash
Wednesday, February 09, 2005

India News, Allahabad:
At least six people were injured in a clash between followers of two seers at the magh mela area near here, police said today.

Trouble erupted last night when devotees of Dwarka Sharda Peeth Shankaracharya Swaroopananda Saraswati barged into the camp of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram pontiff Vasudevananda Saraswati to serve a court order to the latter, circle officer Rajesh Yadav told PTI here.

The followers of both the camps came to blows and the situation was brought under control only after a police party reached the site and used mild force to quell the mob.

Police has lodged an FIR on behalf of Swami Vasudevananda accusing Swami Sswaroopananda and his followers of creating disturbance at his camp and assaulting his devotees, Yadav said.


Great. Physical violence between rival factions in an nondualistic tradtion. That's just great.

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Postby grimep » Fri May 06, 2005 11:04 pm

NYC wrote:Great. Physical violence between rival factions in an nondualistic tradtion. That's just great.


But.. but... don't you see, they're SO spiritual! Gosh, I must leave my cosy Surrey village and FIND MYSELF in Injaaah dahlings, I'm starting to find my materialistic lifestyle so unfulfilling :crazyeyes:

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Sat May 07, 2005 8:02 am

NYC,

Many thanks for all the information!

Tom

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Maharishi roots

Postby erikdr » Sat May 07, 2005 3:45 pm

Okay, some more on the Maharishi links and the Shankaracharya troubles. As my background makes logical, through the info on/off Paul van Oyen (ex-chairman Dutch SES).

Both are quotes from an appraisal about Paul by a friend, linked to on his own website. And are in line with the (in this area slightly more limited) English summary on Paul's own website.


In 1961 the successor to Ouspensky, Dr Francis Roles suggested that the Dutch group might associate itself with the School of Economic Science of Leon MacLaren. At that time the two London based organisations worked closely together in the field of practical philosophy and in the field of self-development on the lines as indicated by Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. In 1959 Dr Roles had met the self-styled Indian guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who introduced the idea of meditation. Although this idea was just another name for what in the Western tradition was known as the Jesus prayer its Eastern halo provided an extra impulse and brought many people to this inner discipline of contemplation and reflection.

Meditation proved to be a perfect instrument on the path of practical philosophy. As later events would show the meditation tradition as advocated by Maharishi Yogi would become part and parcel of the emerging New Age movement. In the early sixties this was all 'new stuff' and highly controversial. Church pundits and academics would regularly call everybody to arms, warning against heretical tendencies. Part of the newly found style of meditation was also the ancient philosophy of advaita vedanta. This again called many so called academics to arms since the vedanta tradition dared to question quite a number of dogma's and axioms of western orthodoxy. In backward Malta the local School organisation was even excommunicated by the Church because people were meditating and studying Vedanta philosophy. New ideas on human behaviour were introduced and, above all, investigated in practice. These included such controversial items as the relationship between male and female, sex energy, food, sleep, levels of consciousness, conscience and the non-dual nature of reality. Indeed, the orthodoxy was up in arms!

These new ideas were all focussed towards leading a disciplined life and were fundamentally directed against the current ideas of 'freedom' meaning do as you please. Although it would not take much of reasoning to show that any do as you please attitude would soon turn into disaster, the sheer idea of leading a disciplined life appeared too much for some of the so called academics and journalists. Still, many felt attracted and joined the organisation that had been evolved between 1961 and 1990 in the U.K., in the Netherlands, Belgium, the U.S.A., South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, Cyprus, Ireland, Venezuela, Spain and Canada. Both Leon MacLaren and Dr Francis Roles leaned heavily on the wisdom and sympathy of one of the senior spiritual leaders in India, His Holiness Shr? Shant?nanda Sarasvat?, Shankar?c?rya of Jyotir Math. The path he clearly showed was a path of inner development towards inner peace, inner strength, intelligence and greater happiness. The final goal is to discover the absolute reality that is the substratum of all and everything. That goal is freedom, liberation, moksha, redemption.


See the Maharishi links again!

In 1994 Leon MacLaren passed away and in 1996 Shr? Shant?nanda Sarasvat?  passed away. A new generation presented itself with new ideas and new ambitions. In 1997 Paul van Oyen left the organisation and took to a life of study and contemplation. He literally retired into the woods as a vanaprastha. He is now closely associated with Shringeri Matha (South India) of His Holiness Shr? Bh?rat? T?rtha, Shankar?c?rya.


What Paul told me in a discussion early last month was that the Northern teacher to whom SES links itself now was of much less standing in the Vedanta spiritual hierarchy than the Southern one of Shringeri.

So far. Any comments welcome, and thanks for the input.
With folded palms,

<Erik>


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests