'In
the light of our own experience of spiritual community, within the FWBO,
it may be possible for us not only to identify the principal factors
leading to the failure of Lawrence's idea of Rananim but also to make
it clear how, given those factors, the idea was doomed to failure from
the start. We can best do this, perhaps, by first reminding ourselves
of some basic principles, - principles that, as a result of our own
efforts to put the Buddhist ideal of Spiritual Community into practice
in the West, we have found to be true, - and then applying those principles
to the idea of Rananim, as Lawrence actually sought to carry it out.
Enumerated more or less at random, the principles in question are:
(1) The spiritual
community consists of individuals.
(2) The 'couple'
is the enemy of the spiritual community.
(3) The spiritual
community is not a group.
(4) The spiritual
community must have a common ideal and a common method of practice.
Though enumerated
at random, these four principles will provide us with a framework for
a brief discussion of Lawrence's failure to give concrete, social embodiment
to his idea of Rananim and, at the same time, enable us to see the limitations
of the idea of Rananim itself - limitations that were obvious to at
least some of Lawrence's friends, even though they were not all obvious
to all of them, or even to Lawrence himself.
(1) The spiritual
community consists of individuals.
The significance of this statement is not so obvious as it might, at
first sight, appear to be. What do we mean by 'individuals; and in what
way does a spiritual community consist of them? At least so far as the
establishing of Rananim was concerned, Lawrence himself it seems did
not have a clearly defined concept of 'the individual; perhaps would
not have wanted to have one, - although when he told Koteliansky 'only
the people were wrong; what he may have meant was that they were
not individuals, i.e. not true individuals.
From the Buddhist
point of view, the (true) individual is one who is self-conscious or
self-aware (though not in the alienated way that Lawrence so rightly
condemned), able to think for himself, emotionally positive, creative
rather than reactive in his attitude towards life, spontaneous, sensitive,
and responsible. The spiritual community consists of (true) individuals
in the sense that it is a free association of - the sum total of the
non-exploitive, non-addictive relationships between - a number of people
who are individuals in the sense defined. Lawrence perhaps had an inkling
of what this sort of community was like when, towards the end of his
life, he wrote that 'the new relationship will be some sort of tenderness,
sensitive, between men and men and men and women, and not the one up
one down, lead on I follow, ich dien sort of business' (p. 207).
(2) The 'couple'
is the enemy of the spiritual community
By the couple, in this context, one means two people, usually
of the opposite sex, who are neurotically dependent on each other and
whose relationship, therefore, is one of mutual exploitation and mutual
addiction. A couple consists, in fact, of two half-people, each of whom
unconsciously invests part of his or her total being in the other: each
is dependent on the other for the kind of psychological security that
can be found, ultimately, only within oneself. Two such half-people,
uneasily conjoined as a couple, can no more be part of a spiritual community
than Siamese twins can be part of the corps de ballet. Their
'presence' within the spiritual community can only have a disruptive
effect. The couple is therefore the enemy of the spiritual community.
Lawrence, however,
did not see this. Perhaps, because of his personal history, and the
pervasive influence of our culturally-conditioned notion of 'romantic
love' between the sexes, he could not see it. As is well known, for
him the man-woman relationship was at the very centre of things, even
though balanced, to some extent, by the man-man relationship. This meant,
in effect, that the couple was at the centre of things. Rananim was
to be made up of married couples: a contradiction in terms.
Among all Lawrence's
friends, the only person who seems to have spotted the contradiction
was E. M. Forster. Writing at the beginning of 1915, after Lawrence
had scolded him so much on his visits to Greatham that, as Keith Sagar
says, 'at last the worm turned; he began his letter, 'Dear Lawrences,'
and continued, significantly, 'Until you think it worthwhile to function
separately; I'd better address you as one . . : (p. 82). Because Lawrence
did not think it 'worthwhile' to function separately it was not really
possible for him to relate to others as an individual, - certainly
not to the extent that is required in the spiritual community, - and
because he could not relate to others as an individual he was unable
to bring Rananim into existence. He could not have his wedding cake
and eat it too, although, like most of us, he wanted to.
(3) The Spiritual
Community is not a group.
It is not a group because a group, unlike a spiritual community; does
not consist of individuals but of those who have yet to become individuals.
Before one can distinguish the spiritual community from the group, therefore,
one must be able to distinguish the individual from the proto-individual
or 'group member; and in order to do that one must be an individual
oneself, for only an individual can recognize another individual.
From this it follows
that if one is not an individual, and therefore unable to distinguish
individual from proto-individual, one will tend to bring into existence
not a spiritual community but, at best, a 'positive group This is what
happened with Lawrence. Moreover, if one is not able to relate to others
as an individual one will tend to relate to them in some other way.
Lawrence was not able to relate to others as an individual: he had to
be their leader; he had to ask them to follow him. Most of his friends
did not want to do this, much as they loved and admired him, and some
of them were honest enough to say so. 'I like you Lawrence', said Mary
Cannan, when she was asked if she would go with him back to New
Mexico, 'but not so much as all that, and I think you are asking what
no human being has a right to ask another' (pp. 168-169). Eventually,
Lawrence himself repudiated the idea of leadership, as we have seen,
declaring, 'the leader of men is a back number' (p. 207). He had seen
that Rananim could not be a group; ... etc.'
[end p 181]