Enlightenment as a Social Construct

"The individual is not really valued here..."

Unless the individual is a consumer. God forbid the individual be a 74 year-old poor person with diabetes or heart disease and no health insurance.

"
What do you think of Richard Baker Roshi as a leader?


"

Well, I hadn't known about him until just now - but obviously the man is a flawed human being. On some levels he did quite well as a leader, growing the San Francisco Zen Center greatly - but obviously he hardly lived up to the ideal of the role that he assumed. What he did is not much worse than what you hear about a lot of politicians, and he could have done worse, like amass a personal fortune through the center.

I think a great deal of the problems Stuart Lachs talks about is related to the idolization of enlightened people and glorification of the enlightened state. (The idolization and glorification of doctors by both themselves and others including television has a detrimental effect on both the doctors and medical care, incidentally). It's a cultural problem and a failure to realistically comprehend the nature of the condition, which after all, does not relieve people of being human. Hopefully secularization and the avoidance of special titles would circumvent some of this.

To be clear though, the idea is not to create either a meritocracy or theocracy, but simply to create as many enlightened people as possible, normalize this state as a part of normal development, and then let them do whatever they want and interact with the social systems at large as they exist right now. If you make enough of them, some of them will enter into positions of power just by the law of averages. I hardly think they can do worse than the unenlightened ones are doing now.

David

Wow!! I just listened to Stuart Lachs on Buddhist Geeks. His presentation on the Dark Side of Zen Institutions found here: personallifemedia.com/guests/999-stuart-lachs is extremely relevant to this discussion, particularly the second episode. Thanks for that reference, Chris! Everyone should listen to it if they have not already.

Lach's compelling presentation raises the issue (again) of how much of "enlightenment" is created by institutional forces and how much of it is a non-dual belief system that we systematically adopt as well as a new social identity fostered by the social system of the sangha.

Previously we have brought up this point, noted that physiology cannot be neatly separated from social systems, and hypothesized that there is a neurophysiological basis to enlightenment independent of culture - that the neurodevelopmental experience finds cultural expression in the form of the content of spiritual experiences as well as beliefs about the condition. I have in other places suggested that the Stages of Insight correspond to an initiatory schema, the purpose of which is to asimilate and integrate a new form of cognition and awareness for which I coined the term "Intuitive Transpersonal Awareness." I also suggested that this new form of awareness is not well understood culturally or rationally by those who have it. So far this is all consistent with Lach's talk.

The question now becomes, to what extent is adoption of a different (non-dual) belief system, subculture, and revised social and personal identity needed to support this new awareness? To what extent is social affirmation of the condition required? And then, of course, there's the question of what part of it is relatively "structural" from an anthropological point of view, and which more biological.

All this is key to the idea of secularizing the phenomenon and how to structure that institution.

"... but simply to create as many enlightened people as possible, normalize this state as a part of normal development, and then let them do whatever they want and interact with the social systems at large as they exist right now."

Okay, I get it now. I can get on board with this completely.

Topic: Richard Baker, his teacher Shunryo Suzuki, and the question of who is Enlightened

In an interview, Shunryu Suzuki (founder of the San Franciso Zen Center) and his wife were speaking, and he was asked something about his own purported Enlightenment. His wife laughed and said "He doesn't have it!" He laughed too. The reader was supposed to infer that Suzuki actually was Enlightened, and his wife was merely joking.

She wasn't.

Shunryu Suzuki was an adequate teacher for beginners, but he was not Enlightened.

Suzuki chose Richard Baker to succeed him at the SFZC because Baker was a phenomenally good organizer and fund-raiser. Baker did succeed in expanding the SFZC enormously. But Baker was neither Enlightened nor particularly ethical. (As a side note, I know the leader of another Zen Center in the US today who said during a group event that he wished he had someone like Baker in his sangha. Oh, man, does that speak volumes about what this guy really values!)

Can Enlightened teachers have seemingly promiscuous sexual relationships and spend lots of money on apparently inessential things? Yes. In my view, this is precisely what Adi Da Samraj did, yet I find his Teaching to be unsurpassed and his siddhi beyond question; he has certainly helped my progress on the Path.

Can un-Enlightened teachers have seemingly promiscuous sexual relationships and spend lots of money on apparently inessential things? Yes. And they do not even offer to countervailing benefit of providing an Enlightened teaching. Such people are a hindrance and ought to be removed from positions of authority.

That's the way I see it.

Yeah, I suppose humans do human things and enlightened humans are humans... but with fries. I think I like the way you see it, Gozen.

"
Can Enlightened teachers have seemingly promiscuous sexual relationships and spend lots of money on apparently inessential things? Yes. In my view, this is precisely what Adi Da Samraj did, yet I find his Teaching to be unsurpassed and his siddhi beyond question; he has certainly helped my progress on the Path.
"

Here's the thing - in every other social position of authority it is intuitively obvious that you don't come on to the underlings. There's transference issues, and they are vulnerable in ways that they would not be among social equals.
A boss isn't supposed to date employees, teachers don't boff the students, and attorneys don't do the horizontal mambo with clients. (Ok - I realize that last was a bad example.)

I'm a really good psychiatrist - but that doesn't make it ok to screw the patients - no matter how good I am.

Similarly no matter how enlightened your teaching, you shouldn't do the bone dance with a student. Period. Just like me, those people are in a position to idolize you, and they get hurt when things don't turn out - and they usually don't. Lach says as much - some people abandon the quest altogether, and that's sad. If we start up a secular institution, that's going to have to be a rule. No boffing the students.

I can't help but think that this is another reason the I-Thou conception should be preserved in some form - because if you are an enlightened master who believes that free will doesn't play a role and you're just here for the show as it were, then that absolves one of personal responsibility. "I couldn't have done otherwise," one thinks to themselves, "and things are perfect just the way they are." I think that beliefs have a downstream effect on behavior - and if you believe that you can do no wrong, and that it's all God doing it - well why not let that sordid affair happen?

"Here's the thing - in every other social position of authority it is intuitively obvious that you don't come on to the underlings. There's transference issues, and they are vulnerable in ways that they would not be among social equals. ..."

David,
I agree there need to be ethical standards that can be easily applied by anyone, without needing to be Enlightened in order to do so. This is simple, easy and clear.

What is not so simple, easy or clear is when an exceptional spiritual Teacher operates in a "Crazy Wisdom" manner. The Teacher has potent siddhi resulting in powerful spiritual experiences for students and apparently miraculous events in the material world. The Teacher speaks cogently and uniquely about the process of spiritual development and Awakening. The Teacher induces, at least temporarily, periods of actual Awakening which the student then either sustains or falls back from. And the Teacher has sex with students, holds special parties for his intimates, and spends lots of money on things not essential to the institution of which he is effective head.

What then? Do we reject all he has to offer because he does not follow our rules?

A lot of Adi Da's followers in Adidam did exactly that. There have never been more than about 1,500 members at any one time. Yet I have it on good authority that at least 50,000 people have "passed through" the organization since its founding in the early 1970s.

This is a very tough problem. I have struggled with it for decades, going through an "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" until I threw up my hands! In the final analysis, I saw that I don't like Adi Da but I love him and value his Teaching. So be it.

"
This is a very tough problem. I have struggled with it for decades, going through an "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" until I threw up my hands! "


What do you think of Chogyam Trungpa's successor?

"What is not so simple, easy or clear is when an exceptional spiritual Teacher operates in a "Crazy Wisdom" manner. The Teacher has potent siddhi resulting in powerful spiritual experiences for students and apparently miraculous events in the material world. The Teacher speaks cogently and uniquely about the process of spiritual development and Awakening. The Teacher induces, at least temporarily, periods of actual Awakening which the student then either sustains or falls back from. And the Teacher has sex with students, holds special parties for his intimates, and spends lots of money on things not essential to the institution of which he is effective head."

What then? Do we reject all he has to offer because he does not follow our rules?""

Gozen, this begs the question -- whose rules? Does deep realization confer special status of some sort? If Adi Da broke the law, embezzled funds, or God forbid did something worse, what then? I completely understand having respect and even love for someone like Adi Da, but while we may not reject his teaching what about his his actions? Who alerts the authorities, if they need to be alerted?

For those of you who do not know the story of Chogyam Trungpa's successor, Osel Tendrin, here it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sel_Tendzin

Apparently I'm going to have to take back that earlier statement about how being enlightened doesn't help you get laid!

So Gozen is basically saying that "the end justifies the means." I would suggest that even crazy wisdom has limits and that there are a lot of ways to "wake people up" without sexually exploiting them. M. Scott Peck, M.D. the psychiatrist once wrote that he would have sex with a patient if he truly believed that that would nourish and contribute to their spiritual growth, but that he could imagine no such circumstance, and that he did not believe such a circumstance is possible. Generally speaking, such things do irreparable damage to people.

Gozen, how much of the spiritual awakening that Adi Da generated in people was accomplished through the unusual behaviors?
I'm going to guess not much. Also I can't say that I'm that impressed that he could generate altered states of consciousness in other people. I can do that, and have done so.

His teachings would have done a lot more good if he could have kept more than 1500 members at a time.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter what your level of insight.

Just as everything you see has a universal and a particular aspect (a tree participates in "treeness" as well as being uniquely individual) so everyone has a universal and a particular aspect, including the enlightened masters. By failing to see that they too have a human, fallible, particular aspect and identifying exclusively with the universal, the masters become capable of incredible irresponsibility. Keeping a subtle identification with the particular binds you to karma, but makes you accountable - and this is part of what it means to be a Bodhisattva.

"Gozen, this begs the question -- whose rules? Does deep realization confer special status of some sort? If Adi Da broke the law, embezzled funds, or God forbid did something worse, what then? I completely understand having respect and even love for someone like Adi Da, but while we may not reject his teaching what about his his actions? Who alerts the authorities, if they need to be alerted?
"

Hi Chris,
If it were a case of breaking the criminal law (rather than a civil tort case) I think that people ought to report the alleged violations to the authorities. What happened in the case of Adi Da is that several former group members filed civil cases claiming that the money they had contributed had been misused. There were also unsubstantiated claims of abusive behavior which did not reach the level serious bodily harm. One of the plaintiffs also had a private complaint that was not legally actionable: his girlfriend (a former Playboy playmate-of-the-month) had become Adi Da's girlfriend (or one of his many unofficial wives). In the end, there was an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed sum, with all parties being required to remain silent about the specifices of the agreement.

I was not there, in the inner circle, when any of the alleged misdeeds took place, so I do not have first-hand knowledge of any of the events in question. But I was a member of Adi Da's spiritual community at the time that these complaints were made public, spread all over page 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle and broadcast on NBC morning news. I left the community shortly thereafter.

Hi David,
You wrote: "So Gozen is basically saying that "the end justifies the means."

Come now, David, I said no such thing. It would be closer to the truth to say that I argued for taking what is valuable without taking what is not. Please don't misrepresent my position.

David: "Gozen, how much of the spiritual awakening that Adi Da generated in people was accomplished through the unusual behaviors? I'm going to guess not much. Also I can't say that I'm that impressed that he could generate altered states of consciousness in other people. I can do that, and have done so."

How much? I have no way to quantify that so I cannot answer. As to generating altered states of consciousness in others: yes, I have a bit more data on that. I myself can induce short-duration changes in the consciousness of others who are receptive. The person will experience reduced identification with the body and a heightened sense of freedom and bliss.

What Adi Da can do went far, far beyond that. I have been in large gatherings of his devotees where Adi Da did this to everyone and to a much greater degree. I have also been the focused recipient of a more direct transmission of his siddhi where I was plunged into the formless realms by his glance in a matter of seconds.

That's considerably more than I can do.

What exactly can you do, David? What sorts of changes in consciousness can you induce in others?

David: "Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter what your level of insight."

Is it so easy to judge right and wrong? Even in a court of law where all the facts have come out, many times a jury or a judge finds that difficult to decide.

"His teachings would have done a lot more good if he could have kept more than 1500 members at a time.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter what your level of insight.

"

Hi David and Gozen,
Gozen's statement re 1500 vs 50,000 appears to give some justification to Adi Da, prompting Davids response "right is right, wrong is wrong". Gozen does not justify Adi Da but there is a "softening of the blow".

With the intended and unintended consequences actions the evaluation of the good consequences against the bad consequences, should not be confused with the fact that good and consequences in and of themselves still stand.
Gozen; I think you tried to evaluate and eventually said it cannot be done, leaving just good consequences and bad (throwing both hands up). However if the good and bad consequences stated together there is the appearance of evaluation.
David; to say "right is right and wrong is wrong", I would say you have said this in the context of Adi Da and Gozens statement and not as a general principle. Stating this, with regards to Adi Da's specific wrong actions I think not many would disagree (including Gozen).

So do we take truth where you can find it, or give consideration to "you shall know them by their fruits"?
Good luck!

[edited for clarity]

Hi Gozen,

I agree that formal teachings should be separated from behavior. I've heard that Joseph Campbell was a jerk, yet I still like his books. Nevertheless, I think that spiritual leaders should be held to a moral standard, because it's not so simple to separate out the teaching from the example they set. I'm sorry if you felt I misrepresented your position and I certainly did not intend to. Actually my point was that the end *might* very well justify the means, if it worked. If a blessing from Adi Da's cinnabar staff conferred kensho on someone, I'm all for it. I'm just thinking that most of the time, it doesn't work that way.

No, of course, it's not easy to judge right from wrong much of the time. I had just finished reading about Chogyam Trungpa, his successor, and listening to Stuart Lachs. I do think it's fairly clear cut that sexual exploitation by a spiritual leader constitutes an abuse of power which is detrimental to the followers. That's just my opinion. It's not nearly the same as being Hugh Hefner where the groupies know what they are in for from the beginning, and there is implied consent. Adi Da is somewhere between Hugh Hefner and Trungpa on that count (without any reference to his level of Realization).

Inducing altered states in others has never been a focus of mine, but on several occasions on the past I was able to induce states in others that involved a merging of awareness and identity and then merging the merged identity with the sensory environment to give a taste of non-duality - all by looking into their eyes - also taking a few seconds. I've done various other things involving energetic manipulation and so forth, but again, never really worked on this, nor have I been interested in it. I think I could do it again, any time really - though some people are more receptive than others, and some moments work better than others.

Doing stuff like that with individuals involves a mastery of concentration states, and an ability to dissolve any internal ego representations - sambokaya elements. It also requires that both parties are open to it, and have no doubt about the possibility. It also involves working directly with the Void. Basically in the case I mentioned above it involves merging consciousnesses and then entering a formless jhana together and projecting that into environmental absorption.

I've never actually attempted this (though I have done some nano-scale versions), but doing this with a crowd would theoretically be *much* easier. In fact, given the proper conditions, I would be willing to bet you any sum of money at 2:1 odds that could produce changes in consciousness in greater than 50% of people in a crowd over 200.

You don't even have to get into trance for it, though it helps. Think about evangelists.

In kind Regards,
David

Is the merging of consciousness related to hypnosis? The relationship occurred to me because both David and Gozen have commented that the individual needs to be receptive.

I was at an "entertainment" event where about half those call on stage were hypnotized (including myself being on stage but not hypnotized) . The funny part was a friend who was hypnotized, after the event came away adament he had not been hypnotized laughing at those that had, he only believed us after we showed him video. There was even an unintended individual in the audience who became hypnotized.

"Is the merging of consciousness related to hypnosis? The relationship occurred to me because both David and Gozen have commented that the individual needs to be receptive.

"

Well, it's not unrelated... I would say that it is an element in a symphony of intersubjective events.

It could be a large part of what happens with a crowd though. Do you know who the largest consumer of NLP literature is? Oral Roberts University.

It's interesting that this came up - this is sort of where social construction blends with esoteric ideas. Let me fill you all in. Now whenever guru yoga is involved in the classic sense, so is the so-called "intermediate zone"
www.kheper.net/topics/intermediatezone/Intermediate_zone.html The basic idea behind this is that there is mundane existence, the intermediate zone, and ultimate reality. So you have to travel through the intermediate zone to get to Nibbana. In a similar respect, the Sambokaya is in between the Nirmanakaya and the Dharmakaya. And the intermediate zone is the realm of the Sambokaya as well as what is referred to as the "astral plane" (eg imagination).

All of Tantra, including the HGA operation (which is a Western version of Tantra), involves a Sambokaya elevator through the intermediate zone to Dharmakaya. The thing is, the Sambokaya element has to be ultimately seen through to get to the Dhamakaya. Now lets talk about egregores, which of course, exist in the "zone." Egregores are concept introduced by W.E. Butler regarding deities. According to Butler, gods and goddesses represent a kind of group consciousness - the collected beliefs of a culture regarding a general sphere of activity would begin to take on a life of it's own. The people may begin to worship the Sun and then more and more symbolism accrues, and people make sacrifices and feed the collective thought form with energy and it evolves into Ra, etc.

Similarly a charismatic leader - or even a movie star with a certain image begins to acquire collective elements to their Sambokaya, it swells up with energy and there is a positive feedback loop involved - the more followers, the more charismatic they appear to be because of the adoration... Energy, group norms, acceptance, useful fabrications, all contribute to the process. This is very easily exploited as well, because it works automatically, like a servitor. You can have effects on people you are not even aware of, because in effect, you have become a demi-god. The artifacts you create, or rituals you implement also begin to develop an egregoric status.

A social construct could be looked on as a group thought form, and therefore an element of Sambokaya.


A good guru exploits these advantages - and a competent siddha could use them to create the effect Gozen discusses and to create openings in peoples awareness - but eventually you have to see through him just like you have to see through the HGA to be fully enlightened. It's a high stakes game. This might be some justification for using crazy wisdom in radical ways. In a way, it's similar to what happens in psychoanalysis - a transference neurosis is created in the analysand (and don't think that psychoanalysis doesn't have it's institutional qualities, lineages, and Sambo egregoric elements), but once the patient is able to see the therapist as fully human rather than their projections, then many of one's projections are seen through. Similarly, I would propose, once one's guru is fully seen through, one recognizes that the desired changes, or "the Lord", or whatever, was within, all along.