Corruption in Religious Hierarchy

[Vajrahridaya]

It's not that it doesn't exist. It's not that one should be either naive, or jaded. But rather if this is all one focuses on, this is all that will manifest for one. You will see the dross and not the gold and you won't even bother cooking it up to purity and profiting at all.

[Josh Young]

I view hierarchy itself as a corruption.

For me there is no one size fits all group approach, the mere act of systematization means that the system cannot work for all people, even if it works for many.

 

Someone on this forum once told me that Buddha taught many ways to many people, how then could there be a single effective approach that originates in him? I believe there is not.

 

Following the example of Buddha means more to me than allegiance to an organization. Following the example of Christ means more to me than allegiance to an organization.

[Vajrahridaya]

I view hierarchy itself as a corruption.

For me there is no one size fits all group approach, the mere act of systematization means that the system cannot work for all people, even if it works for many.

 

Someone on this forum once told me that Buddha taught many ways to many people, how then could there be a single effective approach that originates in him? I believe there is not.

 

Following the example of Buddha means more to me than allegiance to an organization. Following the example of Christ means more to me than allegiance to an organization.

 

Ok, you can follow your dis-organized abstractions.

 

The Buddha in fact said that only through understanding experientially pratitsamudpada would one come to realize the Dharma of liberation. Other paths lead to higher rebirth, and not liberation from unconscious rebirth. But, as someone said, not everyone want's liberation from unconscious rebirth, so they follow their different paths. It's some new age standard that says all paths lead to the same end. This is wrong, it lacks study, it is grounded in mis-translations and a lack of historical study. Even Shankaracharya the major starter of Advaita Vedanta argued that the Buddhist teaching was wrong. Even the originators of the different traditions didn't believe that all paths lead to the same goal. Buddha argued that Mahakasapa who started the Jain system was wrong in no uncertain terms. That those who followed the Vedic Rishis were wrong. Not that these paths are not good, but that they only lead to higher rebirth and not true liberation from the cycle of samsara. Nagarjuna who is one of the fathers of current Mahayana also said in no uncertain terms that other paths merely lead to higher blissful rebirths and higher capacities, but Buddhadharma fulfills the end.

 

Hierarchy has to do with capacity of the being. The more realized teach the less realized how to themselves be more realized. The guru teaches the disciple how to be his own guru. People have potentials within their lifetimes, so it's all relative. Hierarchy is necessary because not everyone is ready for the higher realizations and teachings. That does not mean inherent difference, or inherent one-up-manship either. It should not be a power struggle based on personal ego and wealth. But, there is spiritual hierarchy in subtler and even denser dimensions.

 

This does not mean that someone on their own personal path to liberation does not need to experience or study from a lower yana, as everyone has their own process and integrative progress to make within their own limitations and expansions. But... I am not talking about that form of relativity here. Everyone gets what they get according to their capacity and personal progression. It's all relative. But, there are higher relatives and lower relatives within infinite relativity that is all inherently empty of any self.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

I have never liked the concept of hierarchy.

 

Sure, we should know something about the path we are travelling at the time but it is my belief that if there are more pit-stops available than you feel a need for then you ought to by-pass those you do not feel a need for. Yeah, sometimes we mess up and need to back-track but isn't that where some of the fun in life can be had? Making our own mistakes and learning from them.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

I have never liked the concept of hierarchy.

 

Sure, we should know something about the path we are travelling at the time but it is my belief that if there are more pit-stops available than you feel a need for then you ought to by-pass those you do not feel a need for. Yeah, sometimes we mess up and need to back-track but isn't that where some of the fun in life can be had? Making our own mistakes and learning from them.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, yes... everyone here is so wise, they don't need living teachers and living examples to reflect off of. That's fabulous! Only when we are all completely liberated will we not have need for hierarchy. We will just play with them as games of expression according to karmic traces left as empty, luminous collections that act as humans.

 

Samsara is beginningless and endless, as there are infinite beings, so hierarchy either corrupted or well placed with understanding of abstract needs will always be.

 

I like to walk the line between disorganized abstractions and organized linearity and manifest as a harmony of the seeming duality.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Yes, yes... everyone here is so wise, they don't need living teachers and living examples to reflect off of. That's fabulous! Only when we are all completely liberated will we not have need for hierarchy. We will just play with them as games of expression according to karmic traces left as empty, luminous collections that act as humans.

 

Samsara is beginningless and endless, as there are infinite beings, so hierarchy either corrupted or well placed with understanding of abstract needs will always be.

 

I like to walk the line between disorganized abstractions and organized linearity and manifest as a harmony of the seeming duality.

 

Hehehe. I don't believe I suggested that I was wise. I simply am. I can voice only my own opinion - I have done that. Those who wish to have teachers should stand out in the middle of the road and let a teacher find them. (Well, maybe not the road but you know what I mean.)

 

Pleace forgive me for my ignorance of Buddhist concepts but I am not Buddhist.

 

I love your last sentence! I love harmony! I gave up trying to find balance a long time ago. Darn! Things kept changing!

 

Be well!

[Enishi]

I'm not really big on hierarchies myself, but perhaps that is due to growing up in the more individualistic west? Some people (like myself) wont do so well following a hierarchy, even if it results in them not reaching a certain level in this lifetime. But then again, maybe reaching that level isn't what they need in regards to their karma at a certain point in time. Others will do better with a more experienced teacher, rather than following a "whateva, whateva, I do what I want!" philosophy. Saying there should be no hierarchy at ALL is rather childish IMO. It sounds like a bunch of cultural marxist brainwashing. I'm not saying anyone here is going to this extreme, but I've seen it before among airy fairy types.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Enishi

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm not really big on hierarchies myself, but perhaps that is due to growing up in the more individualistic west? Some people (like myself) wont do so well following a hierarchy, even if it results in them not reaching a certain level in this lifetime. But then again, maybe reaching that level isn't what they need in regards to their karma at a certain point in time. Others will do better with a more experienced teacher, rather than following a "whateva, whateva, I do what I want!" philosophy. Saying there should be no hierarchy at ALL is rather childish IMO. It sounds like a bunch of cultural marxist brainwashing. I'm saying anyone here is going to this extreme, but I've seen it before among airy fairy types.

 

 

hehe... cool.

 

 

I love your last sentence! I love harmony! I gave up trying to find balance a long time ago. Darn! Things kept changing!

 

Be well!

 

Doesn't it just though? The ever changing display of myriad colors, sizes and shapes...

Edited July 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

My opinion is that there is always a hierarchy when one is trying to learn. For example, you learn the alphabet first before learning words and sentences.

 

As you say, if you see the dirt, you'll learn from dirt. But I'm not sure that's what you actually said. .

 

A teacher doesn't have to be a person. Animals, deities, the elements, celestial beings, and so on can also manifest as "teachers" and therefore establish a hierarchy of learning. You can call this an "institution" or whatever, but why is that in any way important?

 

Corruption is therefore not the problem with religious hierarchy itself, but with the individuals that make up that hierarchy. Usually it happens when the notion of a hierarchy is amplified.

 

So just forget it!

Edited July 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Hi Lucky,

 

Valid points, I think. Yes, we learn in phases. Where I have the problem is when someone says "This is "the" way and it is the "only" way."

 

There are, in my opinion, many different ways of learning the same thing. So I will give to the thought that for those who need more structure in their learning a structured method would likely be the best.

 

And I do agree that if you are learning a particular school then the 'master'? should be teaching the school's methods, as exact as possible.

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

we in the West don't like hierarchies (not like our government is any different) because we learn time and time again in history that people become corrupt and we just generally fear people having power over us. we have trust issues, and these are warranted. i think Westerners have a pretty good understanding of human nature. people are assholes, although there are exceptions. and perfection simply does not exist. here in samsara, everyone has their karma. no religious tradition is exempt from this, not even Tibetan Buddhism.

 

the whole Guru thing only works for some people in the West, and the majority of those people have emotional issues like fatherhood issues are lack of self-confidence that draws them to give away their power to an external figure. most people don't really understand the conceptual basis and methodology of Guru Yoga, the symbology of it, and how this relationship transcends duality. in ancient countries where this relationship is more of a custom, people do it simply because its the way it should be. so either way theres really no conceptual understanding of why a the hierarchical relationship is beneficial and productive. I'm grossly over-generalizing here btw. but the point i'm making is that in the West there has to be more intellectual understanding of the relationship, and the necessities of it, and the system that worked in ancient Tibet and India will not work in the US because we have much more of a sense of individuality. another form will work that is more gradual, less invasive, more "spiritual friend-esque", more personal, etc. I think this is the realization that Tibetan teachers are coming to, slowly.

[Marblehead]

Nice comments Mikaelz.

 

Be well!

[contrivedname!]

Ok, you can follow your dis-organized abstractions.

 

The Buddha in fact said that only through understanding experientially pratitsamudpada would one come to realize the Dharma of liberation. Other paths lead to higher rebirth, and not liberation from unconscious rebirth. But, as someone said, not everyone want's liberation from unconscious rebirth, so they follow their different paths. It's some new age standard that says all paths lead to the same end. This is wrong, it lacks study, it is grounded in mis-translations and a lack of historical study. Even Shankaracharya the major starter of Advaita Vedanta argued that the Buddhist teaching was wrong. Even the originators of the different traditions didn't believe that all paths lead to the same goal. Buddha argued that Mahakasapa who started the Jain system was wrong in no uncertain terms. That those who followed the Vedic Rishis were wrong. Not that these paths are not good, but that they only lead to higher rebirth and not true liberation from the cycle of samsara. Nagarjuna who is one of the fathers of current Mahayana also said in no uncertain terms that other paths merely lead to higher blissful rebirths and higher capacities, but Buddhadharma fulfills the end.

 

what is the price current to exhume a dead horse?