[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's almost as if as if there are two different subjects, but it's because the enlightenment is 'as you are now' and the complexities of human relations are inter-defining self-images. For example, I play a role as a 'trainer' which is social position compared with my 'athletes'. Just the same, a 'teacher' is contextualised with 'students'. The relative positions are interdefining, and the boundary conditions are the defining context.

Gem, hello. Agreed that the boundaries are the concrete means by which we de facto honour and recognise our mutual humanity and also contextualise the relationship. Be it coworkers, neighbours, employee to employer, teacher to student, parent to child, and so forth. It is within these boundaries we may concrete engage in ways that are affirming and not dehumanising.

Boundaries are key to honouring the other as other, because the fact of recognising the humanity of another must occur. We must recognise and accept that we cannot act as if there is no boundary between us and thus as if we can take from & do with others as they please. That is the definition of a narcissist...that they do not or cannot recognise the humanity of others...because they cannot apprehend that others' individuated consciousness is wholly distinct from their own...that others are not simply extensions of him- or herself. Others thus exist simply as means to an end for them, reflecting the narcissist's amoral, utilitarian engagement with the rest of the world.

Ethics enters as soon as we organise interdefining relations. A husband/wife relation comes with boundary conditions that accept some behaviours and rule out others. It is precisely those conditions that define the relationship. Parent/child, brother/sister, friend/friend... trainer/athlete, teacher/student... no mater what relationship, it is defined by boundaries.

Yes...boundaries are particularly beautiful aspects of truth and existence as we know them, IMO.

Without boundaries, we cannot appreciate the distinct humanity of the other. It is the interbeing with one another and with all that is, which comprises the very essence of our existence. All these distinct things exist in interbeing because of the boundaries that exist between all things. Without boundaries, in fact, nothing of this material universe could even come to be. Nor would our awareness or our being exist as distinct from One.

Boundaries are highly underrated and hugely critical, IOW.

We create definitions through comparable self-images for a specific purpose, be it to reach an athletic goal, enhance spiritual development, have social support, or whatever. We make these arrangements to fulfill and intended purpose, and because it involves intent, it involves morality. Should we become distracted by superfluous, contradictory desires, the intended purpose loses its way as the boundaries which define the relation start to become unclear, and the relation itself dissolves into obscurity, becomes futile if not detrimental - and ends.

Yes...if we do not respect the boundaries of our relationships within the appropriate, right-aligned context...then we move into a space of misalignment, tending toward amoral utilitarianism. Where the humanity of the other is not properly recognised as distinct and worthy in its own right but rather exists only to be of use to us.

Hence we end up with detrimental teacher/student realtions, and ashram organisational structures without proper protection policy, but firstly the guru have to be a good bloke because he has to set the standards, and secondly, it takes very refined administrative skills to create the organisational structure and its constitution, the built environment, policy/procedure and codes of conduct etc. that will best focus the mission and not compromise it in any way.

Yes, agreed. Otherwise, this is such a misuse of power and authority.

Additionally, the devotee or seeker has sworn a vow of abstinence whilst on the grounds...and what is the guru doing by "persuading" them to break their vows? He is teaching them that their is no such thing as authentic love (lovingkindness centred in equanimity) -- a caustic and pernicious falsehood. The eternal message of the cynic and the unawakened.

He is essentially saying that there is no right-aligned morality or ethics, that what the tradition says is right-aligned is a meaningless sham. This is misdirection of the worst kind, in addition to taking advantage of them physically and emotionally. It is akin to telling them outright to live in misalignment without any deeper regard for their own highest good equally to that of all others -- because there is no higher good, so why bother?

In short, know just what you do. Then it's the meditation of self-awareness without distraction, we call it 'mindfulness', other lots call it something else, but the truth is, the attention is right here right now, and 'this' is what is happening. If we know what's going on with ourselves, clear on our motives, and conscious of what we do, we're less prone to go off the deep end and do hurtful things.

Yes. Absolutely. And likewise, hopefully, we're also far more likely to recognise the misdirection of others, and avoid being harmed by that, as well.

Peace & blessings
7L