--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Segueing from my rap about cliques and why -- in my opinion, of course > -- people form them, I find my self proposing another answer to that > koan: "They're stuck in hierarchical thinking." > > One of Rama - Fred Lenz's crackpot theories that I still think might > have been a bit less crackpotosity than his other theories was derived > from the study of computer databases. The first computer databases > developed were hierarchical in nature. They reflected the largely > hierarchical thinking of the times; everything was organized into > enormous tree structures, "higher" above "lower," from the "top" of the > tree to the "bottom" of it. Cool, I guess, until you had to link one > piece of data to another piece of data way the fuck across the tree. The > only way you could "get there from here" was to traverse the tree, from > branch to branch, until you got from A to Z. There was no way to go > *directly* from A to Z, in one or two jumps. As a result, these > databases were remarkably inefficient, and slow as hell. > > Then someone came up with relational databases, in which the data > elements were linked...uh...relationally. Each data element was linked > not only to the element immediately "above" or "below" it, but to many > others, by *concept*, not by any data element's position in an imaginary > hierarchy. Thus both a cottage and a castle could be accessed directly > by linking to the element that conceptually described both of them, a > dwelling for humans to live in. Relational databases were *much* faster, > and have largely replaced hierarchical databases in the world of > computing. > > Pity that hasn't happened in the world of thinking. > > Humans still have a tendency to think hierarchically. They look at the > world around them and build in their minds enormous tree structures to > describe what they see and experience. And they build these imaginary > structures hierarchically. God or Brahman or whatever you choose to call > it is at the top. Under that are the Laws Of Nature or the Three Gunas > or the Holy Trinity or whatever you choose to call *that* level of the > tree. Under that -- at least in Hindu or wannabee-Hindu tree structures > -- are devas and devatas, or gods and goddesses, or whatever you choose > to call them. Then maybe saints and ascended holy men, then priests who > haven't acended to sainthood yet, then ordinary spiritual teachers who > haven't ascended to priesthood yet, then priests, then rank-and-file > seekers, and then -- "below" all of them -- layers and layers of peons. > They're at the bottom because they Don't Really Matter, being so low on > the cosmic totem pole tree and all. > > So now what do you DO if you're one of the peons, say back in a past era > of Indian history, and you discover that you have a desire to access the > data element called God or Brahman? > > If you chose Hinduism or Vedism, there was simply no way to get directly > from A to Z. You had to "traverse the tree," first sucking up to the > rank-and-file seekers so they'd deign to accept you as one of them, then > sucking up to the spiritual teachers. And you had to PAY these spiritual > teachers -- and the priests above them in the hierarchy -- to get > accepted by them. Then you had to pay them even more to (theoretically) > get them to intercede on your behalf with the saints and the devas and > devatas by performing yagyas and chants to them on your behalf. And then > only *they* could intercede on your behalf with God or Brahman. > Accessing Brahman directly was Right Out. > > On the other hand, if you chose Buddhism, you *could* go from A to Z, > because Z was not at the top of some hierarchical tree structure, but as > close as the other peons beside you. All of you were inherently linked > relationally by a greater data element called Life. One of the reasons > historical Hindus (and even wannabee Hindus in the present) dissed the > Buddha so much is that he said, "Skip the small shit. You don't *need* > any of these intermediaries to access the 'highest' element of Life. > Tell them to fuck off, and that you don't have to pay them a penny to > intercede for you with that which you wish to access. Just access it > directly. Do It Yourself. DIY." > > This is one reason that Buddhism was so popular when it arrived on the > scene. It is also the primary reason why Hindus during his lifetime and > for all the years afterwards have been so down on him -- he threatened > their *source of income and livelihood*." > > Anyway, I resonated with this idea that Life is relational in nature, > not hierarchical. I'm a DIY kinda guy. > > But not everyone is. I think that those who call themselves seekers but > who cannot conceive of themselves *as* seeking unless they're a part of > a group of other seekers are kinda stuck in hierarchical thinking. > That's why they gravitate to spiritual traditions with lots and lots and > lots of *hierarchy*. > > At almost the bottom of the hierarchy -- everyday meditators. Who are > *almost* the lowest of the low, except that *they* get to look down the > tree structure at the layers and layers of non-meditating peons "below" > them. "Above" them, of course, are the TM teachers, the initiators. > "Above" them are the Governors, a "higher" form of TM teacher. "Above" > them are even more levels, called at various times "108s" or "Purushas" > or "Mother Divine Ladies." "Above" them are the Rajas, and "above" them > is -- really...no shit -- "the King." "Above" him is only Maharishi, who > we have been told may be dead, but is now on "a higher plane than all > the gods and goddesses." > > Given all this hierarchical thinking, is it any wonder that those at the > "lower" levels seek to "elevate" themselves in this hierarchical tree > structure by inventing even smaller levels of self-importance? Voila. > Cliques. > > Seems kinda inefficient to me, and if what you're looking for is to go > from A to Z, skipping the small shit in between. Slow as hell. The > essence of spiritual low-tech. > > But that may be because when it comes to cliques, I've never seen the > benefit of joining one. Didn't do it in Junior High School, didn't do it > in High School, didn't do it in college, didn't do it in my professional > life, and didn't do it in my spiritual life. Guess I was > Buddhistically-oriented long before I ever knew what Buddhism was. > > Either that or I was such a DIYer that none of the cliques I encountered > along the Way wanted anything to do with me. Cooties, y'know. :-) > > Why do I suspect that some of the clique-ists on this forum are going to > suggest another word to replace "DIYer" above? And that this replacement > word is going to imply a position "lower" on some imaginary hierarchy > than theirs? :-) > > Me, I think that the Firesign Theatre got it right: "We're all bozos on > this bus." The bus is called Life, and any notion that any of us are > "higher" or "lower" on it is imaginary. >
Some of the same dynamics happened in Christianity when Protestants broke off from Catholicism and said people did not need to pay for penances, use Popes or have a whole hierarchy of rituals to reach God. Still, I read of some recent studies that suggest that most humans are happier beings when they have rules, even many rules. I am guessing that the reason might be that people feel more secure with some rules,that they save time because they don't have to think so much about daily decisions, that they physically and emotionally just feel better with routines, that there is security in knowing "what to do and when to do it and how to do it." The hierarchy of age is interesting. When I was a child I recall just adoring adults who treated me with the genuine respect they had for adults. Still, I think adults have more experience and wisdom and can protect younger people from not only danger, but also the pain of some stupid choices and behaviors. I guess what I am saying is that there needs to be a balance in life between hierarchies and using them usefully, and the unstructured lifestyle. Kind of like the art that results from 2 extremes can still be moving: the work of painters in the eastern traditions who spend 20 years as apprentices and then still paint mandalas according to all the mathematical rules of specific proportions and colors vs. contemporary abstract art. Different strokes, different folks, both can be effective. Same with spiritual paths. the problems come up when the path does not mesh well with the individual's temperament. And then some paths might be inherently faster or kinder than others.
