Idries Shah Addresses New Alpha

Idries Shah's Address to “New Alpha”

Features “A Personal Introduction to the Work of Idries Shah”by Martin Mathieson

Notes on Idries Shah's Address to “New Alpha” 2 of 21

Notes on an address by the writer and Sufi teacher Idries Shah, givento “New Alpha” class leaders, at Langton House, Langton Green,

near Tunbridge Wells, Kent in England, on 14th January 1979.

With many thanks to Martin Mathieson of the yahoo! Groups Caravansarai and The Tenth Donkey for providing an excellent personal introduction

and scans of the Notes on the Address itself.

First edition: 15 December 2009Second edition: 1 February 2010 (now with intro)

Sher Point Publications, UK

in association with

sarmouni.dyndns.org

http://www.sarmouni.dyndns.org/


Contents

Key 4

Part I 5

A Personal Introduction to the Work of Idries Shah 5by Martin Mathieson

Part II 11

Notes on Idries Shah's Address to New Alpha 11

1. The Institute for Cultural Research 11

2. The Sufi Trust 12

3. Society for Sufi Studies 12

Questions and Answers 18

Other Points 20


Key

The original layout, which was produced on a manual typewriter, has been updated. For example, underlines have been replaced with bold or italic text. However, the content is that of the original, with the exception of minor copy editing to punctuation and quotation marks (one or two of which were uncertainly placed) where the intent of the original was clear. Paragraph grouping has been preserved.

Text in square brackets [thus] has been inserted by the current editor and was not a part of the original document. Rounded brackets (thus) are part of the original.

Odd words in the original were struck through (as indicated in this edition by struck through red text) and corrected with a pen (blue text) or with a typed additions inserted between the lines (green text). In many cases, due to the limited resolution of the scanned image of the original document, it was not possible to read the penned replacement words. Text missing from the bottom of pages 2 and 3 of the scans of the original document and since verified is shown in purple text.

The scans of the original (comprising five pages) may be found at the yahoo! group The Tenth Donkey in the Photos → Scanned articles section, with many thanks to Martin Mathieson for providing the scans and for penning the introduction.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/welcomeHomeFriends/


Part I: A Personal Introduction to

the Work of Idries Shah

by Martin Mathieson

My reason for writing this introduction is quite simple. Most people these days believe, and in fact many at the time to which I am referring believed, that if one was interested in Sufism one approached Idries Shah directly after either reading his literary works, seeing an article about him, or hearing about him from another person. My introduction to the work of Idries Shah, my involvement with Langton and subsequently the Society for Sufi Studies was nothing like this. I also believe that many who have read Shah’s works might find the type of literature and group activities which led me to Idries Shah to be totally out of keeping with what they recognise as typical Shah-type material. My reason for writing this introduction is therefore to explain how this ‘material’ fitted into my introduction to the work of Shah because if I had not been introduced to Shah via this route I, like others, would not have believed there was any connection whatever between what went on at the ‘New Alpha Society,’ at Shah’s house at Langton Green, or indeed the Society for Sufi Studies.

I had been involved with Beat Zen, The Buddhist Society and the Theosophical Society between the age of 15 and 22. At around 22 I met Ken Radcliffe who was a long time student of Eugene Halliday. (See www.eugenhalliday.com and www.eugenehalliday.org.) I spent a couple of nights a week for several years around this guy until he went to set up a centre in Wales. (I still have contact with many friends involved with Halliday and as the two aforementioned websites indicate, this work is still ongoing. I no longer have any personal interest in this material although at one point I later spent several years with Eugene Halliday.)

Although I went to Radcliffe’s centre in Wales at the weekends and was married with children I now had several free evenings in the week so

http://www.eugenehalliday.org/

http://www.eugenhalliday.com/


when I saw an advertisement in the personal column of a local newspaper which asked What’s Life about and why are we here?, I contacted the advertiser for details of the first meeting.

At the first meeting there were about 40 or 50 people and the man who called the meeting introduced himself as Derek Gow. (I am almost sure Derek Gow is the author of First Year Studies a paper in the files of The Tenth Donkey website and which is typical of his brevity, clarity and insight.)

At this meeting I remembering liking what Derek had to say, which just means I identified with what he said. However, he made no attempt to persuade his audience to come back to any further meetings and his manner was more off putting than inviting! (This was not his personality which was friendly and open but a deliberate attempt to discourage those who could be easily discouraged.) At the following meeting there were less than half the original numbers and after the third meeting at which we started to work through P.D. Ouspenky’s The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution we were down to about six or seven members.

For those tempted to label this as a Gurdjieff group due to an Ouspensky’s text being used, it was not, Gurdjieff was not mentioned other than by certain members of the audience and this material was never used again after that first year. Derek’s use of the text appeared to be to introduce certain ideas yet at the same time to convince the more fanciful amongst us that Derek’s approach would not be to their liking. This was very successful, by the end of the year there was just Derek and I.

During the second year we advertised on the Wirral and started the process over again. At the same time I used to visit Derek at his home in Southport. It was in his library that I first noticed Shah’s books. ( I had read The Sufis which I liked very much but at that time I was involved with Radcliffe.)

At some point during this year, I started to learn of the dozen or so groups with about 200 or more members stretching from around Stoke-on-Trent to Southport. These groups went under the heading of the New Alpha


Society and were under the direction of Laurence Burchell. The origin of this organisation went back to the late 1940’s. The guiding philosophy of the group appeared to have been developed over a long period of time by Burchell and was called the ‘Philosophy of Developmental Change.’ [i] The essence of this viewpoint was that mankind was the direct result of evolutionary developmental processes. These processes have given rise to ever more complex matter, leading eventually to the complex human nervous system which is capable of suffering thoughts, feelings and sensations. However, these experiences of having thoughts, feelings and sensations are the result of prior changes in the nervous system and therefore consciousness is impotent.

One of Burchell’s booklets was called Small Change after a piece in Shah’s The Way of the Sufi, page 228:

‘When a man is a beggar, he thinks that small change is a fortune. It is not. In order to rise above beggarhood, he must rise above small change, even though he uses it as a means. Used as an end it will become an end.’ (Ibn Ikbal.)

Burchell wrote several books, booklets and series of papers and the organisation also produced a magazine and a couple of books of poetry.[ii]

During this time, as I understand it, all Idries Shah’s group activity had ceased. This was also true of all the groups associated with Gurdjieff and Bennett that had been under Shah’s direction and which had been disbanded. For some reason or other the N.A.S. groups which were associated with Shah at this time were neither disbanded nor did their activities cease.

After I had known Derek Gow for a year or maybe longer I was given a printed Octagon symbol, this design about half a metre square (black on a white background). I had seen a similar one in Derek’s study framed on the wall and was told to do the same with this one. I was also given crystal


pebble in a small pouch which I was told to take care of. (This was eventually stolen and I asked and was given a replacement. Later, I lost this one, too, and I didn’t want to advertise my carelessness by asking for another.)

For one of the themed Arabian nights parties our local N.A.S. Group printed some cards with the Octagon symbol on the cover and various Sufi quotations printed on the inside. I took them to the party so they could be sold for the charity. For some reason Shah looked at them and withdrew them from sale. I think it had to do with the size of symbol but actually we never found out the reason.

Members of the N.A.S. were also invited to visit Langton for several weekends a year. The number of times members were able to go appeared to depend on how many other members went over a specific period. I have records of four of us going for one weekend but I also went on my own on other occasions. As everyone in the N.A.S. was from north of Birmingham this necessitated that we stayed in the guest house within the grounds of Shah’s estate. So this also limited the availability of places on weekends. The highlight of the weekends was the meal in the Elephant on Saturday evening for everyone who wanted to stay. Shah was usually present and he just sat anywhere on one of the long tables like the rest of us. I can’t clearly remember how many the Elephant could hold but anything between 30 to 60. However, if Shah was there at some point it would go quiet as everyone wanted to listen to what Shah had to say. Without apparently raising his voice Shah would talk for some time, usually puffing on a cigar. Then he would get up and the evening was over. Some talk would carry on in the guest house where it became obvious why it was called the Elephant as we all described what we thought was the relevant part of the talk. When Shah was not at the house the dinner meeting had a different flavour but was never disappointing.

We were also invited to certain other activities such as auctions and parties which were held at Langton House. I think that all New Alpha Society members were invited to join I.C.R. but as it was not discussed I can’t be certain of this. I certainly was and went to the first weekend course on the Nature of Religious Man.


Another time Robert Ornstein came to lecture somewhere in London. I am not sure if this was open to all or only to Shah’s students. I suspect the former. However, Ornstein also gave an evening lecture at Keele University which although open to all the university students I believe was essentially for the N.A.S. Groups in the north as Keele University was based very near Stoke-on-Trent, Burchell’s home. As far as I know he only gave these two lectures at that time.

Whilst much of the work of the N.A.S. involved lectures and papers, we were also expected to read all of Shah’s works, keep abreast of popular scientific material such as Desmond Morris’s ‘The Naked Ape’, Monad’s ‘Chance and Necessity’, Alvin Toffler’s ‘Future Shock’ etc. Members were also encouraged to attend local evening classes on philosophy and psychology. Nevertheless, the practical work went beyond a theoretical appreciation of the ideas as members were also involved in calligraphy, poetry and wine making. In the N.A.S. centre where these activities were carried out were two books which were always open at a different page every day. One of these was the Bible and the other book the ‘Divan of Hafiz’, the edition produced by Octagon. I once told Burchell I could not understand a word of it and he told me that it was not meant to be understood as information but in time I would come to understand some of it. I am not sure he was right.

Later, after the publication of ‘Learning How to Learn’ several group leaders contacted Shah and were invited to Langton for a meeting with him in the Library on the Sunday morning. Notes from this meeting at which was discussed the setting up of the Society of Sufi Studies are available on ‘The Tenth Donkey’ website.

Following this meeting as far as I know all those New Alpha Society members who wished to join the Society for Sufi Studies could do so. I also know that many former group leaders of the N.A.S. became group leaders in the S.S.S., both of former N.A.S. groups and the newly formed S.S.S. groups. I believe Derek Gow was involved with one of the central London groups. [iii]


This then is how I was introduced to the work of Idries Shah, ostensibly though the New Alpha Society but really through my friend and mentor Derek Gow. I was in touch with him on several occasions after Shah’s death and then lost contact with him. I tried to get in touch with him over several years and finally caught up with his wife who informed me he had died a year earlier. For my part, my time spent with Derek was the one of the most productive and useful periods of my life in this area. [iv]

Footnotes to the Introduction:

i. Lawrence Burchell wrote several books and papers on the Philosophy of Developmental Change, and an outline by Derek Gow is available from the files of yahoo! group The Tenth Donkey.

ii. Burchell wrote also under the name C.B. Henwell and these were printed in house for members of the society. Some of his works were entitled Just Another Reason, Small Change, Diary for a Year, Magic Pass and The Little Read Book and Talks by C.B.Henwell.

iii. On reflection I do not know this applied to all of the N.A.S. It certainly applied to the Northern groups set up by Derek Gow, such as Manchester, Wirral, Liverpool and North Wales. I don’t know if the Stoke groups actually chose to join the S.S.S. or not.

iv. When I met Derek he was in charge of nine factories for an International Chemical Company. Later when I was speaking to someone who appeared quite close to Shah they described him as a high flyer. As far as I am concerned I would describe him as a Sufi and certainly a man of the late 20th century. He was very bright, very open and very talented at whatever he did, a Sufi.

Martin Mathieson,31st January 2010.


Part II: Notes on the Address

Address by I. Shah to “New Alpha” Class LeadersLangton House, 14th January 197911 am. - 1.30 pm. approx.

Copy of Notes

Three activities were current:

1. The Institute for Cultural Research

The I.C.R. [still operating and now based in London] exists to infuse and make known valuable psychological and cultural information. There is nothing metaphysical or religious about it.

It provides an infrastructure and supplies adequate information upon which the studies (which they are included instructed in) might be built.

An example of the way this works: to develop technology in an area, you might begin with public health (in order to sustain a technological society it helps if the public is healthy, so although there seems to be no obvious connection, establishing a public health programme may be a very firm way ??? to introducing a technology). A form of basic education is necessary (in our culture before spiritual studies might begin) and I.C.R. exists to promote this.

I.C.R was established (historically) at a time when psychological “propaganda systems” (Freud, Adler; etc.) were beginning to decay in their influence and when new information about brainwashing, propaganda and indoctrination was coming in. (It would not have been possible before this).

I.C.R. is there to enrich the culture by doing useful educational work and provide the ground for something else.


It was assumed (by some people) that the I.C.R. was the “cover for a cult” and this is exactly the frame of mind which they wished to avoid.

I.C.R. is “clean” (as it were) and not a “cover.”

There is also a social and professional aspect so “we can interact with scholars”; etc. it is not therefore a subversive organisation.

2. The Sufi Trust

This is a registered charity with the aims of preserving, maintaining and propagating “the spiritual and literary traditions of the Sufis.” This organisation will publish and in other ways maintain the flow of the authentic material of the spiritual tradition.

Orientalists will always change the documents which they translate.

To maintain the currency of the documentation specifically written and published for teaching purposes in the past.

Once you are in a position of knowledge (You “know something”) they (the materials) can be made use of and are therefore not superceded. (He is talking here, I think, about the heritage of spiritual materials from “the past”). When you know something then they can be made use of.

3. Society for Sufi Studies

[An announcement was made on 1st September 1989 that “The Society will be suspending all activities for the time being” and these activities have not yet resumed, if they ever will.]

This society has been formed because the time is right. (In the past) groups have been formed/re-formed; etc. The pattern has been irregular and there has been xxx no recognisable “cult.” This has been very useful in that it has avoided numerous things that detract, such as the requirement people might feel for a substitute family; etc. The materials had been widely discriminated disseminated? And such “came out of the woodwork” in response to this material. Some of the things in the books are obviously


wrong but were put in to see “who would adopt them because of the bankruptcy of their own ideas.” These people were to be isolated from “the main stream.”

Like/dislike, acceptance/rejection, belief/disbelief (this coupling was inappropriate here, we could not use such a mechanism when approaching the Society. People have not been taught that certain things are subject to this. We know that there can be no question about the 5 times table (but don't see this as applying in other areas).

This either/or has been bought at too high a price, we have sacrificed flexibility. Most of us have been taught that we can conceive and evaluate. The Society for Sufi Studies “is in fact a school.” We cannot approach you, nor can you approach us in a spirit of acceptance/rejection.

We find this difficult because it is almost always in our culture “threat and promise” “we don't do that.” It is an educational system designed to overcome this.

The next section deals with the principles upon which the Society works. It is not informational – [it] demands to teach what there is to be taught in a manner which the teaching requires. Normally in science (for example), people make a hypothesis and test it out, but we are trying to lead you to something which we already know about. This is normal when somebody has done something before.

We cannot use the study systems which have already been developed. If the material goes into a scholastic organisation (for example) it will come out “with a scholastic coat on.” The scholastic technique cannot be used in our field.

(They) cannot rely on prestige, which increases expectation. (They) cannot use threat/promises, cannot use force, therefore what they do is to attract interest, and they keep this interest on as low a level as possible.

There will always be in the human being the desire for another family or tribe; etc. (you have it, I have it, and we always will have) – there


are ice-flows to be navigated around. They don't want the psychiatric case, the type who says “I felt so much better after I saw you”; etc. I deal with such people in my civilian capacity.

(They) have to set up a structure which avoids the mechanism (the kind of study symbolised by “the college”, for example). A body of knowledge must avoid all the impositions which the undisciplined mind demands of it. “We are not giving out a stimulus, therefore it is hard to keep an audience” (but) we are not all (stupid, mechanical) “like that.”

The Langton parties [social occasions] exist to bleed off pent up emotion (a safety valve). “I never promised you fun and knowledge at the same time.” Enjoyment and learning have to be separated – like the man who watches a T.V. Documentary as pure entertainment, knowing it's not true.

We are specialists and we unfortunately have to appear critical of other organisations – but we are only being descriptive. People who complain are often saying “what you call emotion, I call spirituality.” We can distinguish between two things which they cannot. The Society has to do that, i.e. make subdivisions (which others perhaps cannot).

The society has three kinds of constituency:

1. Individuals who write or telephone; etc.

2. Existing groups of people who have, or think they have been working in this field.

3. Groups which we have set up.

At the very best, collecting people at random is a useful activity; at worst it is a simple “processing” – like an industrial process.

(Now for the “bad news”) “I think you see people as needing to be processed.”

The good news (is that) it is not difficult to put flexibility into these studies.


A peculiarity of (certain?) human beings is the compulsive imitation of authorities – auto mimetic.

He had to give up smoking, not because he would get cancer, but because the people around him who took up smoking (even going so far as to adopt the same brand) would have. This behaviour is rooted in greed. The person wants to get something, he doesn't know what the basis is, but he wants the manifestation, and thus he copies.

People who have not been placed in any group sometimes form their own “because they go to Langton” (this being regarded as some kind of qualification). These are the “spiritual cannibals”, Thus we find that “we cannot trust the community in which we find ourselves.” The Society has been formalised so that no study group can “make itself.”

As a further example of how things have gone “haywire”, Shah said that he now even has an “imposter”, someone who claims to be him and who does things that he will not do.

People who (actually) want to learn do not display compulsive imitation; etc. – the signs are very obvious if they manifest – it doesn't take “eyes” to spot them.

Groupings: There are far more people studying our ideas than were ever authorised to do. People say “don't shoot the pianist – he's doing his best (laughs) but who says we need a pianist? We don't need the pianist.

The Society is there to harmonise and structure groupings so that they can function. It is impossible for him to give lectures. People often ask him to do this but (there is no point), they could get just as much from a book (the implication was that only low level teaching is possible with undeveloped groups).

It has to be organised: It is an organism and it cannot be done by any other method (paraphrased). We have to have the control.

He was very much against the idea put to him by a long standing “spiritual leader” in this country that “we must keep the boys and girls together.” These types of organisations say “join, pay our subs, and if you don't get anywhere, it's your fault.”


Our organisation is different. It exists primarily to organise the teaching in this area and must have the ability to develop its own groups, its own curriculum. It must operate as efficiently as possible. It is not there to feed something into a waiting organisation.

Mentions how people are always asking him to “throw in a bit extra” like the Jesuits who joined saying “Give us a few exercises to keep up what we are doing.”

We find very obvious non-requisitors in “metaphysical/spiritual” groups which are not aware of them. These are “heroic groups” in our terminology (i.e. they are like ignorant heroes on the battlefield, going on oblivious of danger – they are ignorant, stupid heroes). They are entertainment organisations. The studies are developed to attract the people.

To maintain the vitality of his organisation 90% of the effort must go into that – and he must avoid the superficialists; etc. Anything left over for “other groupings” i.e. self-appointed teachers (they are self-appointed, even if they do not realise it) must be at little more than an informational level.

He cannot connect with existing dilettante organisations. “If any of you are interested in what we are doing, we cannot offer more than a certain amount of experience and information. We do not tinker with other people's organisations, because this is not possible.”

He has introduced a new concept: “time, place, people” [i.e. right time, right place, right people] – such a new concept brings many things in its train. He cannot provide you “with materials if you have no school with which to handle them.”

(Emphasised) He invited our attention to the fact that a psychological/spiritual organisation often exists for the people to have something to belong to (He said that people in our culture have shown a taste for the phoney).

“There is a also lot of material about, but nobody accepted it.”

People do not want to learn but to dominate and be dominated. It is not our task to change anybody – they ((can only) change themselves.


The “way through” is not by means of setting up an organisation “to gain satisfactions”, “You cannot be paid twice.”

You can only do a very small amount by yourselves (e.g. by “self observation”; etc.). After a point it becomes self-immolation or flagellation.

Don't (try to) give up all your hang ups. We are trying to get you to suspend certain assumptions for certain purposes. “We are studying you. We've got no problems except for you.”

The student cannot study the teacher (only himself).


Questions and Answers

Somebody said “You've said what not to do, but what can we do?”

Shah: “Exclusion is a primary thing – give me exclusion any time.”

When you have no knowledge you are prey to people who will supply entertainment.

Shah then offered a summary of what has been said.

“We have an unfamiliar organisation. Occasionally these arrive, and are dissolved. Some bits go on (as relics). It would not be fair to say that it is familiar to you. It (the Society) has the right to do nothing, to offer you nothing – if that is what it wants to do.

It will always exist, but you won't always be interested in it. It can be easy to avoid such an organisation. People who want authority, repetition; etc., should avoid such an organisation because they won't get them.

At least: it is possible to have an organisation without the de-merits that the familiar ones have. Your (everyday) society offers you “satisfactions” – so why not get them from there.”

“We are able to maintain such an organisation because there is a sufficient number of people who take to it like a duck to water” and who find no difficulty in accepting such an idea. Our duty is primarily to them. It is only when the basic people are there that they can begin to offer things to other organisations.

The larger numbers of people are at cross purposes with us – they want authority, stimulation; etc.

(He then cited or named “spiritual tradition” which goes “don't enjoy yourself” – once this is accepted we become the victims of our hangovers[?]).

This material is not to be discussed “publicly.”


“Re-act to it as you think fit” (if you want information or classification clarification you can have it – direct from Shah or Fry).

The Society has two sides:

1. The groups set up on the basis of the society's assessment of who can best be grouped together.

2. Groups which do not come under its organisational structure but which are affiliated to it – educationally these are at a disadvantage: they will tend to work mechanically – their ability to use the materials the others do is severely limited.

There are two kinds of membership: full members (very limited number) and associate member (“you could be one”), you would receive a certain quantity and quality of materials (books, papers, cassettes; etc.) which are not to be passed on and which are specifically for you.

The two kinds of groups may receive the above and also receive material through the class. “class leaders” receive additional materials which will enable them to run the groups. The class leaders meet three times a year.

This looks mechanical but mechanicality is countered in response to feedback. Within the structure (things) are not acting mechanically.

But the organisation does not undertake to do anything: there should be no expectation of mechanicality because this inhibits your capacity to act [with] flexibility.

There should be no expectation beyond the very minimum. The secret is “how much, when, where, how.” If this is not known then “you are treating people like animals in a factory.”

“We cannot use labels which have developed bad associations over the years.”

“You must decide what to do either individually or collectively about this and I hope that there may be some communication in writing.”


Other Points

Other points not noted down in correct succession but recalled after meeting (paraphrased):

1. “I shouldn't speak of this too much because it soon gets spooky, but we are in connexion with “another realm” which is beyond all this – it is non-systemised [sic = systematised] (“organic”).

2. I was told you were a nation of truth-seekers when I was sent to you, that you would stop at nothing... (heavy pause, thinks) – I suppose I can't deny that.”

3. “This is an organic not a mechanistic organisation.”

4. We have introduced a new concept “time, place and people”, but if everybody else – down to your local bus conductor – starts using it then we'll have to move on, we have to stay ahead of the game.”

5. “My father [Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah] taught me to listen to conversations and to try, by thinking very quickly, to anticipate subconsciously exactly what the other person was going to say” (advocated this as a technique).

---oOo----

Notes on an address by the writer and Sufi teacherIdries Shah, given to “New Alpha” class leaders in 1979.

Date post:	28-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sean-lee
View:	436 times
Download:	3 times

Idries Shah Addresses New Alpha

Documents