[p2p-research] the next buddha is a collective

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear friends, and in particular the 'cc' friends,

I have written a reply to Janos Mate about peer spirituality, see
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/will-the-next-buddha-be-a

I"m adding the text below, an answer to his earlier contribution, and would
really appreciate your comments and own contributions on this matter.

Thanks for considering adding your insights and experience,

Michel


Dear Janos,



Thank your for your letter/comments and for taking the time to respond and
critique the paper.

Let me first say that I find your reference to Primordial Unity and the
Value Orders of great interest, including the metaphysics of the Kabbalah.
Like you, I treasure the insights of thousands of years of  the various
wisdom traditions.  However, I make no claims to metaphysical  expertise and
must remain agnostic in these matters.

But I key question is this:

-          The value orders are undoubtedly real, but it there a hidden
unity, an objective reality behind them?

I have been influenced, amongst other traditions, by the metaphysics of
critical realism, so I do actually accept that there is a objective reality
out there, that we can approach under certain conditions. So, I reject any
notion that reality is a pure construction of the human mind. But perhaps
contradictorily, I also think that spiritual realities are co-constructed by
spiritual traditions, what you call the value orders. Like Jorge Ferrer and
John Heron, I believe that we are now in an age where we should communally
construct shared (but not necessarily similar) understandings of the
spiritual world we live in. That is, there should be an open inquiry amongst
a community of equals, with freely accepted guidance from those that may
have gone further on the path of that self-same inquiry. Amongst such
guidance, I would include all the voices from the past, enshrined in the
cultural-religious traditions and their value orders. But we take none of
them at face value, and critically evaluate and experience their injunctions
and worlds of experience. I think that ideally, an individual may attempt to
undertake a voyage through the different value orders by him/herself, but as
this requires a particular motivation (and perhaps desperation), and it is
in any case impossible for any individual to recapitulate the whole world’s
experience, we can undertake this collectively by allowing individuals from
different frameworks and value orders to encounter each other.

Given your sixth paragraph, and your insistence on our embeddedness in value
orders, I would say that yes of course that is of course true, that is how
heritage and education are transmitted, but it is also something that can
be, at least partially transcended. The very socialization of individuals in
a culture, also gives us the tools for autonomy, to critically reflect on
that heritage, to encounter other traditions, and compose one’s own
understanding.

I wonder what you make of the reality that today, the value orders are
blending. For example, western capitalism, born out a particular history and
value order, is in turn influencing the other regions and cultures of the
world, being adapted in particular ways. In turn, because of the more open
communication channels, these different value orders are also being received
in the West, being adapted in particular ways. No doubt the value orders
still exist and carry their influence, but they are also much more exposed
to hybridization as never before.

One should also never forget, that traditional religions were born in class
societies, in fact along with them, and that the originally greater unity of
shamanic practices was shattered by these opposing value orders, each of
them being rather coercively imposed and culturally transmitted in
particular regional areas. Once the coercion falters, we see a fragmentation
occurring (witness the evolution of Protestantism), while also today,
individualism causes individuals to compose their own spiritual
understandings, made up from a variety of influences.

When this process happens in a peer to peer context, this freedom of
recomposition increases even more.

You then go on with making the strong claim that all spiritual inquiry
should start from the Primordial Unity, and that methods should be developed
“independent from the customs into which individuals are born”.

This is a very strong claim, that Primordial Unity exists and that such
independent methods can be devised.

The Buddha is a Collective is in fact an answer to that, inspired by the
work of Jorge Ferrer and John Heron. It is to gather a community of equals,
to devise freely chosen methods of inquiry, and to share and exchange the
findings of such inquiry with each other. It invites us to be open and
transparent about our respective frameworks though, as I’m not sure we can
be truly and fully independent of them. The key is then to acknowledge and
share our frameworks, accept the adventure of inquiry, and see what each
brings back from the journey. B y shedding a multiple light on that object
of inquiry, we are then hopefully more able to see a greater, more
integrative part of the truth.

In a further paragraph, you seem to think I’m an American, you are mistaken,
I’m from Belgium, and though I’m of course influenced and embedded in that
original culture, like you, I have once undertaken a journey to encounter
these ideas ‘born elsewhere’. I’m assuming John Heron has done the same,
therefore, you are also misreading him.

I’m fully with John Heron where he expresses a critique of oppressive
spiritualities, and am disappointed that you differ in this. That is a
choice you make, but I believe that a spirituality that is non-coercive and
non-oppressive is fully possible, if only because I have experienced it
myself, and that spiritual understandings should be dis-embedded from
coercive structures and its justifications.

Humans are neither antelopes nor lions, though we are partly animals (of
course we are fully animals, but we add layers of conscience and complexity
that makes us particular as human animals). In fact, not only that, but we
even have the power and potential to heal many some of the natural splits in
nature. For example, an antelope and a lion cub, born in a loving human
family, may in fact not chase each other!

The truth that the world is a terrible place, that cannot possibly be the
work of a loving God, has been expressed in Gnostic spirituality. There is
undoubted truth in that, but there is always the aspect of love, as also
expressed in human beings, which can heal much of the terror that is
naturally embedded in that world.

The peer to peer ethos is in part an attempt to create more love in the
world, not just as human beings with each other, but also in our relations
with other beings. What if that ethos was in fact the best way to  experience
the Primordial Unity?


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090511/3aa9acb4/attachment.html>