If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.

[jacob]

I've linked this one a few times before. It's deep/dense: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1198/1/fulltext.pdf

Similar ideas here: https://www.amazon.com/Over-Our-Heads-M ... 0674445880
and a nice video of Kegan's orders (same as Bateson's levels): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW4LTqRJDW8 (11mins long).

After watching the video, consider the challenge is grasping the next order if one has an incomplete (buffet-picked) view of one's current order (defined by "subject"---which doesn't become a seeable "object" until one is ready/capable of seeing it). Ditto baking, thinking, personal finance, karate, ...

For perspective, 7% of adults are order 2 (example(*): Trump); 58% are order 3 (Kelly); 35% are order 4 (Ryan); and <1% are order 5 (Bannon).
Also, most will naturally think they're on a higher order than they actually are

(*) Disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist and these orders are derived strictly according to HOW they talk/behave as portrayed in the public.

Add: The 101 on Kegan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUOapqI3rzs

[FrugalPatat]

I don't think this quote is interpreted in its original meaning in this thread. The Buddha in the quote is not an external teacher or teaching. It is a conceptualisation of 'Buddha Nature' as this link explains: https://www.thoughtco.com/kill-the-buddha-449940:

Linji also once said, "'Buddha' means pureness of the mind whose radiance pervades the entire dharma realm." If you are familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, you will recognize that Linji is talking about Buddha Nature, which is the fundamental nature of all beings.

In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion.

[Mikeallison]

Telling someone "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" is probably fair advice in general (fruit in moderation is good for you), but could be terrible in the particular (the person is allergic to apples).

I get what the OP is saying here, because in the school of life, unlike physics, there are no teachers, just fellow travellers, and while they may be further down the path than you, that path has changed since they passed by, and the terrain can be similar, but also completely different, making their advice dangerous, irrelevant, or only half useful. You have to examine what they are saying, see if it is applicable to you, and toss out what is counter productive or useless. In other words don't eat the apple if you are allergic to it.

I agree with Jacob here if by "guru" it is ment someone who imparts specialized knowledge, but it seems like Riggerjack is angling more at wisdom here, and that is something completely different. You have to pick your way down that path on your own, no one else can show you. Although you can study the footsteps of others.

Interesting stuff, but messy. Just like all the best problems.

[jacob]

Wisdom is experience with [using and applying] knowledge(*). Aristotle called it phronesis and it's the clever (nous/intelligent) application of knowledge (episteme). I think Jason can maybe say something more smarter than me here? What I'm gonna say is that there's a way to organize such principles and guidelines as well. Maybe there's even a grand unified theory of principles somewhere high enough.

Higher levels are not messy and crazy even if they look like it from below. Those who watched the Kegan vids might have noticed that the presenters (including me) have a hard time describing level 5. This is because the person describing it isn't viewing it from above (6) from which level 5 is something they HAVE rather than something they ARE and knowing who you are is difficult because it's part of a process of turning it into what you have. Only gods (at level 6) grasp level 5 from above. I'd dearly like to meet a level 6. Just once ...

(*) In mathematics, this is called "maturity" and physics it's called "insight". Basically the grayback will ignore the neophyte's "this is given by the equation"(**) only to compare it to some simple metaphor and get the answer [intuitively] right w/o all the technicalities.

(**) "Nobody can predict the market", "Stocks/real estate always goes up in the long run", ... bla bla bla .. those old tiresome talking points.

But yeah ... noobs start with facts ("just give me the facts" is a good indicator of a beginners-mind, even if they don't know it themselves; "these are the facts" is a good indicator of the advanced beginner's mind) and then proceed to rules; then guidelines and principles; then systems and something beyond that.

There can definitely be teachers of the guidelines and principles of living. There can also be teachers of the facts and rules of living (those are a dime a dozen) ... but many yet not most students would eventually exceed the rule-stage and kill the rule-stage Buddha and learn from the guideline-Buddha. As Campitor notes, it's hard to tell the difference between the teachers from a distance until you understand enough to know who's BS'ing.

[jacob]

@Frugalpatat - Good link. Buddhism always seemed to me as the solution to existential angst being the destruction of the ego or whatever humans have built to preserve their sanity. IOW, that the ego is the worst virus ever to be installed in the human mind. Killing the Buddha in this sense seems like reverting the ego from version X to X-1 ... all the way down to elimination.

Interestingly, if you go by Kegan, the ego is similarly eliminated the higher up you go, but the path is different.

[Mikeallison]

"facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

The word is too imprecise don't you think? I feel the same way about alot of the systems of organization that we as humans come up with. Even our best are just high definition shadows on the cave wall. But I get it, a crude tool is better than none at all.

Since we are on the topic, isn't it Zen Buddhism that has you go through mental exercises in order to deliberately obliterate the type of systematic thinking we are talking about? I think the idea is something along the lines that those who endlessly bifurcate their perception of reality into smaller and smaller pieces, find themselves further from the truth, not closer to it, correct?

I'll have to look into Kegan, brand new to me.

[bryan]

True story. I was talking to a teacher (Earth Science) about ocular rods and cones (I was 15 at the time). I explained to him that in the absence of visible light, we are completely blind.

Define visible, define blind (I guess that's your point? That even though he may have been correct he didn't educate you well? or vice-versa)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic ... lion_cells
Wiki page mentions blind (rodless, coneless) people still have some non-image-forming functioning bits..

[Paula]

Add: The 101 on Kegan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUOapqI3rzs

The following is copied from the youtube transcript of the video

Level 3

we base our opinions on the opinions of others on what the book said on what the theory says on what our parents taught us on what the government says or what society says anytime we're conforming to a rule or conforming to a judgement or using a referent a referent focus or a a learned role to help define who we are or what we're doing that is indicative that is a symptom that tells us that we're operating in in the third order of transition it tells us our third order

Level 4

at level 4 were it's about identity it's about autonomy it's about individualization and so when we get to
this level 4 we we start to author who we are

Level 5

when we get to level 5 this is when we suddenly can hold our identity of who we are and what we stand for we can hold that object so we no longer a prisoner of our own identity we no longer say well this is who I am and that's all there is to it

when we hit level 5 we're able to see the the nuances of life we're able to see the complexities of life and how we need to expand who we are and become open to other possibilities so when we hit level 5 what we're doing is we're reinventing ourselves we're reinventing our identity because we understand that our identity is limited because the circumstances in our life will continuously change and thus our identity will need to change with it

How do personality types fit into these levels?

[Campitor]

Define visible, define blind (I guess that's your point? That even though he may have been correct he didn't educate you well? or vice-versa)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic ... lion_cells
Wiki page mentions blind (rodless, coneless) people still have some non-image-forming functioning bits..

I'm not the Buddha you're looking for.

[jennypenny]

Ha. I've had this stuck in my head all day ...

\

[jacob]

@Paula - Personality type is a set of preferences for different aspects that make up one's personality. Different preferences make for different personalities. As/if people become more mature and develop new orders of consciousness, this is seen as a mellowing/rounding out of the more stereotypical behavior of a given personality seen at earlier stages.

I'd posit that those who have a hard time personality-testing themselves---getting random results---are probably order 3. If the self-authorship stage is undeveloped, it's hard to know who you are when you're subconsciously being defined by your relationships to others or the environment (i.e. when people are confusing who they are with what they do, e.g. "I'm a salesman therefore am I outgoing").

[7Wannabe5]

I found it interesting that Level 4 is sometimes referred to as the "modern" level. In "modern marriage" therapy, you work on "differentiation" which is basically what is described as "self-authoring" level in relationships in Part 2 of the Medium article linked above.

Operating from Self Authorship means defining what we want and clearly communicating those wants to the people we care about.

Since I was engaged in self-aware therapy at the time, I can time stamp my transition from Level 3 to Level 4 in the realm of intimate relationships as right around age 40. "Passionate Marriage" by Schnarch is sort of the bible on this process. You know you've made this transition when you can freely choose how to respond (as opposed to react) in intimate relationships as well as less personal situations (such as performance review at work, where mature reaction is more conventionally expected.) Not that you won't react, but rather that you will not be able to un-learn the knowledge that reactions come from within you, not from others, and are not subject to deliberation or approval by jury of peers or authority.

Interesting note would be that due to the power struggle at issue in this therapy group, there was initially a very rigid, incensed white shirt/ black shirt division between spouses who wanted more sex and spouses who wanted less sex. Then as individuals "did the work" that took them from Level 3 to Level 4, these barriers broke down, because it could clearly be seen that what initially seemed like polar opposite functioning was actually just two-sides of same dysfunctional coin. Some individuals in the group remained stuck at Level 3, never able to make the transition.

Anyways, I agree with Jacob's theoretical rankings of well-known Republicans since, although somewhat loathe to admit, it corresponds very well with my level of sexual interest in these gentlemen

[IlliniDave]

I kind of think similar to what Mikeallison said above. The "kill the Buddha" koan seems to speak to resisting the urge to assign grades/credentials. When you perceive you're an expert or are qualified to understand expertise (I see the Buddha), in recognition of the Buddhist principles that perceptions are flawed and "reality" such as it is is fleeting and temporary, you should reject the perception (kill the Buddha) because it is false.

If you want to map the koan into western thought/educational models, I'd tend to say it would go along the lines of: the greatest value of education is in learning how much you don't know. But I don't see a problem with trying to apply it to master/pupil relationships, it just doesn't resonate a whole lot with me.

[fiby41]

If you are killing in the name of Buddha, then you have not learned an iota from him.

One who takes the Self to be the slayer and
the one who thinks He is slain,
Neither of them knows the truth;
For the Self slays not nor is He slain.