The mysterious (and mysteriously anonymous) PPIAG

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.

Complainants Only: Do you know who the PPIAG are?

Yes, I know who they are
8
47%
Haven't a clue
9
53%
 
Total votes: 17

Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:17 pm

mm-, I?m with you. The party faithful will turn out to the meeting in force and it will be a whitewash. After all, senior members of the SES have weathered one PR catastrophe. I think they?re subtle and cunning enough to weather another. They?ve got too much to lose otherwise.

Not all that long ago, I believed the integrity of the SES to be beyond question. This BB has enlightened me and made me see the gap between their words and their actions.

I?ll quote some of their words from the SES publication ?Convivium?:
David Boddy in Issue 3: ?It is indeed the love of truth which unites us all. That love transcends all difficulties and opens all possibilities. For all present during the satsanga, truth did win. And will continue to do so.?

Excerpt from an article on JustEconomics in Issue 1: ?But it is land which gives access to all these resources, and here the worst iniquities are found. Wherever human activity creates a demand for land of a particular type, we find it being taken quickly into private hands. The whole capitalist system is based on this.?

This is my current view of the SES and its leadership (in Britain at least):
It is an organisation run by and for the benefit of a coterie of high-earning middle class men. They have created a hierarchy and placed themselves at the top, which on planet SES affords them tremendous status. They get to swan around in beautiful properties as though they own them, playing at being ?wise men?. Meanwhile, the other ranks/lower levels do all the work; the repair and maintenance of buildings; gardening; catering; Art in Action; all in the name of Service.
As if that were not enough, they?ve managed to persuade a bunch of women that their only legitimate role is to serve men. This is ordained by God moreover, so these women had better enjoy it.
Nice work if you can get it.

User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:20 pm

You would not say this if you had seen what I've seen - a bunch of senior men swabbing the floor on a Saturday.

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:47 pm

Spot on Jo Anne. This is exactly my experience, I grew up among some these privileged money donating members and saw how their situation differed from the rest. I would go to tutors large houses and watch them down plates of beef and lamb after "lectures" extolling the virtues of vegetarianism. I never spotted any books on indian philosophy on their shelves yet they made it to the "higher -ups" in record time. It is a very British class based organisation.

After leaving St James as a teenager I wanted to understand why I thought in certain ways and patterns so I re-read the Upanishads, Mahabharata (about 12 of its books) studied Tantra, read the complete works of Plato (missed out Laws, couldn't face that one) then went through Gurdjieff Ouspensky then Blavatsy Krishnamurti and even Maharishi. What became immediately apparent is that SES did not have a single original idea of it's own. It clumsily borrowed and mixed without any real understanding or regard. As everything in the 'teaching' is available elsewhere in much greater depth and clarity I came to the conclusion that people join SES exactly for this class based order, they want to be a part of some social elite and perhaps even put in their place. The "material" is secondary.

User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:13 pm

I found the men in suits very alarming when I first met the School so it certainly wasn't for that reason. I still don't think it is (at least not for many), having recently found myself in a much younger group. What is noticeable now - which wasn't the case in the 1970s - is how many students come from overseas or are non-British in origin.
It's quite true that people do value the social structure of the School. After all, if you've been together for years it would be surprising is this were not the case. And there's no doubt that the London School (the only one I know) has a very British middle-class cast to it. I particularly noticed this when I returned from India, as one might. But that's probably unavoidable and no great sin.
Leon - I admire your persistence in your studies and what you say is quite true. The School makes no pretence of originality.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests