The Association for Spiritual Integrity — honor code of ethics for spiritual teachers

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

We can agree as a society not to kill each other, but you will have to question and transcend these rules at some point in your spiritual journey.

This doesn't mean, that it's not desirable to have these rules, only that they can not possibly be adequate for all states of consciousness.

And that is where you lose me. This thread has done nothing but confirm my suspicion that ethical questions around spirituality is absolutely necessary. If a spiritual state was given nuclear codes, I would evacuate the planet faster than the members of Heaven's Gate.

[Nilsi]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And that is where you lose me. This thread has done nothing but confirm my suspicion that ethical questions around spirituality is absolutely necessary. If a spiritual state was given nuclear codes, I would evacuate the planet faster than the members of Heaven's Gate.

We can talk about ethics, just not in such a reductionist manner.

The question is whether you care enough to actually work on creating a holistic framework for spiritual practice, or whether you are sloppy and enforce some well intentioned rules that will only kick the can down the road.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

a holistic framework for spiritual practice

Enlighten us.

In the meantime while you work out your utopian fantasy world of enlightened saints, we normal people who live in reality will create rules which are easy for people to understand and follow. 

It's ridiculous that when we talk about normal everday stuff, everybody is like "yeah, laws and ethics are important", but when somebody mentions spirituality, everybody goes full relativistic libertarian nihilist. It's actually a mind virus.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

Of course spirituality as a social activity needs ethics, as does every other field.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Enlighten us.

In the meantime while you work out your utopian fantasy world of enlightened saints, we normal people who live in reality will create rules which are easy for people to understand and follow. 

You can do that, but what good is it? If you don't address the fundamentals, you're just moving problems around. 

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 It's ridiculous that when we talk about normal everday stuff, everybody is like "yeah, laws and ethics are important", but when somebody mentions spirituality, everybody goes full relativistic libertarian nihilist. It's actually a mind virus.

You can't disentangle spirituality from the absolute - what are you even talking about at that point? 

The mind virus is thinking you can address the world's problems in a vacuum.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You can do that, but what good is it? If you don't address the fundamentals, you're just moving problems around. 

What are you talking about?

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What are you talking about?

I've given you my perspective, no? 

Your ethics board will create problems elsewhere, because it's not an appropriate solution.

You can work out the best legislation in the world and it won't change shit, if you don't also address problems in education, economics, ecology, culture etc. 

Is it so hard to grasp that these problems are interconnected and you have to think about them as such, if you actually want to improve shit? 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I've given you my perspective, no? 

Your ethics board will create problems elsewhere, because it's not an appropriate solution.

Laws and ethics are limiting human expression in many ways, but currently we don't have any better alternatives for assuring some basic level of social safety. You don't get rid of the best alternative just because it isn't perfect. You also don't even have a slightest idea of what a better alternative would be.

[Nilsi]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Laws and ethics are limiting human expression in many ways, but currently we don't have any better alternatives for assuring some basic level of social safety. You don't get rid of the best alternative just because it isn't perfect. You also don't even have a slightest idea of what a better alternative would be.

I'm not saying we should get rid of all law and order, I'm just saying this is not the solution.

I would rather have our best people work on a more comprehensive approach to these issues and that's no rocket science - you just factor as many variables in your solution as possible and do so progressively better.

You want to throw in the towel before even getting started, which is a shame.

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I'm not saying we should get rid of all law and order, I'm just saying this is not the solution.

I would rather have our best people work on a more comprehensive approach to these issues and that's no rocket science - you just factor as many variables in your solution as possible and do so progressively better.

You want to throw in the towel before even getting started, which is a shame.

Now you're doing something funny. Are you saying after all this time that we should have ethics codes for spiritual teachers?

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Now you're doing something funny. Are you saying after all this time that we should have ethics codes for spiritual teachers?

No. I'm saying we should create a situation, in which we don't need ethics codes.

Until we're there, we shouldn't mess with things we don't understand.

As we factor more and more variables, new solutions will emerge, that don't look like rules and ethics boards.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

No. I'm saying we should create a situation, in which we need neither ethics codes nor spiritual teachers.

Until we're there, we shouldn't mess with things we don't understand.

As we factor more and more variables, new solutions will emerge, that don't look like rules and ethics boards.

So only when it comes to spiritual teaching, you want to remove the best alternative we have for assuring a basic level of social safety before we even have the slightest idea of a replacement? Well, I hope you'll never become a spiritual teacher then 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

I don't have all the answers myself, but it's obvious to me that the way we're approaching this is fruitless and will create as many problems as it solves. 

I would rather not tinker with anything until I see an opening for some actual systems change. 

If you want to improve something now, go play some board games with old people; listen to your friends problems; call your mum; talk to a homeless person; work at an animal shelter - if you want to improve things on a systems level, you need some patience and foresight. 

We can create a humanistic religion, but spirituality is truth, is the sacred and is an absolute endeavor and won't need to be tinkered with if we get everything else right.

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So only when it comes to spiritual teaching, you want to remove the best alternative we have for assuring a basic level of social safety before we even have the slightest idea of a replacement? Well, I hope you'll never become a spiritual teacher then 

This is completely irrelevant. Skew the zero-sum ethics/truth trade-off you're proposing whichever way you please, but just acknowledge that it isn't a solution. 

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

We can create a humanistic religion, but spirituality is truth, is the sacred and is an absolute endeavor and won't need to be tinkered with if we get everything else right.

Because the absolute is so fragile, as if it hasn't endured for all of human history, and as if it isn't the formless basis of all of reality, and that if a spiritual teacher wants to use it to satisfy their mammalian needs, we would be damned to question that. 

At least people on this forum aren't using the absolute to justify things like suicide... 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

At least people on this forum aren't using the absolute to justify things like suicide... 

Does that mean we should lie about the absolute or should we perhaps inquire what caused these people to be so disillusioned with their life's that they would prematurely end all possibility of it becoming something worthwhile?

Likewise with sexual promiscuity of spiritual teachers. We should find out why this happens and when it's pathological and then address the root cause instead of repressing this stuff, causing it to pop up somewhere else in reality.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Does that mean we should lie about the absolute

"Rule #1: Don't fuck your students."

"You're lying about the absolute! You're confusing the students, making spiritual teaching harder for the teachers!"

I think this is just ridiculous.

 

19 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

or should we perhaps inquire what caused these people to be so disillusioned with their life's that they would prematurely end all possibility of it becoming something worthwhile?

Likewise with sexual promiscuity of spiritual teachers. We should find out why this happens and when it's pathological and then address the root cause instead of repressing this stuff, causing it to pop up somewhere else in reality.

We should not put people in jail, just find the root cause. Very myopic, not very systemic.

Anyways, this is looping.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

We should not put people in jail, just find the root cause. Very myopic, not very systemic.

45 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

It's not obvious to me that putting people in jail is a net positive at all. Let's assume it is and it's still absolutely pointless to throw people in jail without trying to figure out how to create a situation in which we wouldn't need to lock them up in the first place.

Considering this example, I guess we would need to draw some kind of line we're not willing to cross.

I guess not murdering other people is a good place to start.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

it's still absolutely pointless to throw people in jail without trying to figure out how to create a situation in which we wouldn't need to lock them up in the first place.

The only problem is that now you're off into utopian fantasies again. We're stuck with blunt tools for now, but no tools is worse.

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The only problem is that now you're off into utopian fantasies again. We're stuck with blunt tools for now, but no tools is worse.

How can we ever move beyond blunt tools, if we can't imagine a future in which we have great tools and set up the conditions necessary for that future to happen?

I'm convinced that this is a fruitful endeavor and not just utopian fantasies, but the line is quite blurry.

In any case, I'd rather give it my best shot and fail spectacularly than throw in the towel and go back to business as usual.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Nilsi