The fellow I studied with for a while, Rama - Frederick Lenz -- had some curious theories and insights into things. Some of them I consider Looney Tunes, and did even back when I was studying with him. Others I thought might have had more of a clue. A few I still think have a clue.
One of his "clueful ideas" for me was the notion that the universe is relational, not hierarchical. And he riffed on this theory using a metaphor almost all of us in the audience were familiar with -- computer data- bases and how they work. Early database systems were hierarchical in nature. They were based on the same "tree structure" organization you see in...uh...tree diagrams. So the theory was that if you arrange data in a tree structure, you can find the data you want by following the branches. Only trouble with this theory in practice is that you can ONLY get to the data you want by following all the various branches leading to it. Want to compare two pieces of data? You've got to first find the first piece of data by traversing the tree, then find the second piece of data by traversing the tree, and then continue to traverse the tree looking for other related pieces of data. Inefficient as hell. Relational database threw away the tree. It also threw away the notion of hierarchy. Data elements are related to each other only by the fact that they are related to each other, not by their place in some imagined hierarchy. As a result, in most cases relational databases are more efficient, and run faster. Now think about descriptions of the universe you have heard about from most spiritual traditions. Pretty hier- archical, aren't they? At the top (or at the base of the tree) is God or the Absolute. Then there are certain "levels" (branches) under that -- devas, avatars, gods, demons, whatever. Then each of these branches have limbs, and those limbs have smaller limbs, and way, way down on one of those limbs is you. You want to relate to the trunk (God, the Absolute, what- ever). The only way you can do so within a hierarchical description of the universe is to "traverse the tree." In a relational system you can have a 1-to-1 relation- ship with *anything*, including the trunk, God, the Absolute, or whatever you want to call it. You can also have *multiple* relationships -- you can have a 1-to-many relationship between one teacher and you as one of many students, but you can also have a 1-to-1 relationship with the teacher as equals, members of the same table labeled HUMAN_BEINGS_SEARCHING_FOR_A_CLUE. The teacher- student relationship does not "trump" the equal-equal relationship; both exist simultaneously. There is no hierarchy implied or required. And there is no better search path; you can access the teacher using the 1-to-many relationship, or you can access him/her using the 1-to-1 relationship, whichever is more efficient for the query you are submitting. I think that Rama might have had a minor clue with this computer analogy. Most spiritual traditions seem to impose a hierarchical template on the universe. This action is good; that action is bad. Hierarchy. This dakini is neat, but that deva is better because she's at a higher level. Hierarchy. This seeker is better because he has more access to the teacher than that seeker, and we know that the teacher is better because he has more access to the next level up on the hierarchy. I like the relational model. It feels more intuitively correct to me than the hierarchical model. Nothing and no one in the universe strikes me as inherently "higher" or "better" than anything or anyone else. That doesn't mean that it true, or an accurate model of the universe; it is possible that there IS no accurate model of the universe. I just prefer the relational model because it has more resonance for me than the hierarchical model. If me believing this makes you feel that I'm "lower" than you are or that your understanding of the nature of the universe is "higher" than mine, I'd say that indicates that you feel more resonance with the hierarchical model. :-)
