I've been part of many different spiritual traditions in the past 10 years or so. My current view is that actually it seems to be so, that the experiences and insights themselves are not so important. What is important is to learn the language and concepts used in the communities and then seek approval, power, roles etc through the discussions (the politics) where those concepts are used.

Whoever gets the most comprehensive understanding of the discourse gets the best positions on the hierarchy of the community. The guru is the one whose understanding of the discourse is so good that he/she can actually shift it to the directions where she maintains the existing power relations.

What do you think about this?

Of course every group of people who join together for any reason require a certain level of mutual understanding otherwise it'd just be a group of individuals with no common ground. You wouldn't join a sangha without any knowledge of Buddhism just as you wouldn't join the Law Society without the relevant knowledge being obtained beforehand either.

If a genuine guru gives certain people higher "positions" within a heirarchy then there's usually a fair reason for this. Perhaps these people have, as you say, a more comprehensive grasp of the discourse and have demonstrated their abilities more than other group members and may be able to provide assistance to those struggling with understanding. In this case, why should that be a problem unless you generally have a problem with authority or have reason to disagree with the choices of the leader of the group?

The unfortunate flip-side of this is the guru who abuses his/her power and gives these higher positions to those who they has a, for example, physical or financial interest rather than "promoting" them due to their ability to facilitate and assist with teaching. As for shiting the discourse to maintain a power structure, that would be utterly pointless and any effort to do so would be clear to all but the most naive of students. Personally, if I saw a teacher doing this I would leave the group as it would speak volumes about their intentions and honesty.

thinkin... sheeple reference?

whatever else you might be mistaken about, way wrong room man, try again

Good teaching can come from the most unlikely of directions. Hierarchies are just a part of the picture.

Actually I didn't think that the gurus would give the hierarchical positions, but rather that the community itself - the people in it - will establish hierarchies and find "positions" in it. By the positions I actually mean the power relations, e.g. who are the people whose opinions have more value than others, whose opinions and comments are downplayed, etc..

Hello & welcome to the Dho,



The ‘guru’ may or may not be directly aiding in a community’s hierarchical position depending on whether or not they are capable of relationship. If that person is capable of relationship, they will demonstrate a reliable propensity for valuing their personal opinion more than that of the others. Further, their actions and opinions may also be biased based on their appraisal of the comparison of relative value between any number [1] of ‘others’. Thus, those who are higher on the hierarchy will tend to be those persons perceived to be relatively similar (or complimentary) to the guru’s self. This is because the guru’s projection of ‘them’ will more closely validate the guru’s self and thus the guru will validate those person’s opinions (or whatever) more often (relative to those perceived to be less congruent). The top of the hierarchy is self justified (literally as well as figuratively).

If the ‘guru’ is not capable of relationship [2], such a one will not directly influence the system in any way. Indirectly, however, their very presence in the community [3] may influence the hierarchy because they are—to those capable of relationship-- a ‘being’ (via projection only) which the community members incidentally take into account in their relative comparisons of value as it pertains to a whole slew of things. E.g. a community member’s appraisal of the value of their self relative to the value of ‘others’ as it pertains to: status outside of the community, relevant contextual knowledge, the nature of the relationships formed with ‘others’ within the community and the perceived status of those they are in relation to, etc.

Practically speaking, it would be best to have conversations about these matters with a knowledgeable person that is incapable of relation, as that means that the person is also incapable of corruption. Being incapable of corruption, one may then know that the words being spoken/written/whatever are reliable (although it must be noted that such a condition does not imply infallibility).

The question then may arise: how does one identify the difference between a person capable of relation and a person incapable of relation? In some cases, the answer may be readily apparent; but I suspect it is typically not. In the case that it is not apparent, I recommend not worrying about it [4]. Instead of searching for that answer, focus on thinking for yourself as best as can be done. Consider the content that each individual is supplying and the situation in which it is supplied in, and further evaluate that content via sensible thought, reflection, and experimentation.

Trent

[1] E.g. the guru comparing their self to another, the guru comparing another to another, the guru comparing groups of others to other groups of others (in the case of cliques), etc.

[2] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.049.than.html

[3] In this case, “community” refers explicitly to the actual people, things and events taking place, whereas the other usages are indicative of a relational “community” (or can be read either way without distorting the meaning of the sentence).

[4] As this question is only of importance to a person capable of relation, the contextual answer (as it pertains to any community or individual within the community) is likely to be veiled because such a person’s very ability to relate is what skews that answer from being apparent.

awesome post.

About the sutta you posted... with regards to:



I don't get this sentence. I was expecting Buddha to say they are not yet done, since they were influenced by his approval.

Trent, that was really good post.

Still I don't know whether I agree about the persons "incapable/capable of relating". I think this idea is based on the notion of systems, where it is possible for a person to be outside observer. I don't think this is possible. If one is to have a discussion about these things, that person must relate to the context of the discussion - even if it would be just via the person he is discussing with. If one doesn't have any relation to the context of the topic, then he can't discuss about it.

So the best thing that I have come up with is to have discussions inside the community, with people interested of having these kinds of dialogues and thus get new viewpoints to the communities which will then be validated by my own thinking that has been influenced by the discussions.

It is also important not to have any fixed goals for the discussions as that would also function like a self producing prophecy. Instead one can proceed step by step, examing the current situation and thought system. The next step will be naturally created by the examination.

Hi,



What this idea was based on is this body's moment to moment experience of being alive sans identity and it's reflection on memories of a time when there was an identity (and thus the human condition) in situ. Thus, it is based on the thoughts of this body, which is an outside observer of the human condition (and all the relationship therein).



It certainly is possible, and dependent upon your purpose for posting on this forum, it may well be where you are heading. I supplied the link to the Khema Sutta for three reasons: (1) to reference a source you likely perceive to be more credible than I, (2) to provide an example of that source stating that relationship is not possible after a certain point of attainment, and (3) to show what that certain point of attainment is.

Vis.:

(1) "On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery."
(2) "Not as higher, lower, nor equal do they refer to themselves. "
(3) "When a monk is an arahant, (...)



One does not need to relate to the context of the discussion, one simply needs to understand the context of the discussion.



Sounds good, so long as there is one assumed goal underlying such discussions: the elimination of suffering in this lifetime and the practical ways of getting that done.

Have you any topics in mind?

Trent