💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › flow-the-buddha-s-hierarchy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:25:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Buddha’s Hierarchy Author: flow Date: October 16 2020 Language: en Topics: Buddhism Source: http://dhammaflow.org/2020/10/the-buddhas-hierarchy/
Buddhist institutions have a hierarchy within them. The strength of
these hierarchies varies greatly between and within traditions, even
between individual monasteries. Largely, some of this hierarchy has been
around for a great deal of time, with some parts present from the origin
of the order.
If we hold that horizontal organizations are more egalitarian and more
effective than hierarchical organizations, then we must ask the
question: why are Buddhist institutions largely hierarchical and who is
responsible for this development?
There are a few responses:
a vehicle for the Dhamma
potentially with appropriate textual revisions.
and moved away from them.
and or other hierarchical religious orders.
Naturally one or more of these can be true. So let’s address each one in
turn. First, that The Buddha favored a hierarchy during the initial
creation of the order. If we look at the original context of the order,
as something new which raised objections against much of the pre
established hierarchy present in the Brahmanical religion (see: caste,
who is allowed to ordain, the importance of ritual, existence of a soul,
creator deity, etc.) we might conceive that The Buddha saw a hierarchy
as lending both legitimacy to the order and making the order more
similar to existing power structures.
He may have had the thought that the preservation and dissemination of
Dhamma was of greater priority than the creation and maintenance of a
horizontal order. That spreading the Dhamma was best achieved by a
hierarchical order.
Does this make sense? Potentially, as state powers organized with a
hierarchy are able to offer unified decision making in such a way as to
present homogeneity and make itself more easily comprehensible to
existing powers. So too may the order have done such initially.
It’s worth noting however that the hierarchy within the order was not
one of coercion, no monastic could beat you up or take your stuff (what
little one has) if you’re out of line. Rather, like many stateless
organizations, leaders and important figures were directly beholden to
the people they ministered too, in the case of the monastics this is
clear given the monastic dependence on lay people for food and other
goods. If the monastics are not up to snuff, it is completely within the
power of the lay people to refuse support.
Yet, presently many Buddhist institutions have developed a kind of
theology which can at least feel coercive. Fear of hell and the merit
that keeps one from it through service to the monastics being my primary
thought. I think this dovetails well into the second point: that perhaps
the hierarchy was developed and strengthened after The Buddha’s death.
If the original sangha’s power dynamic was one of being materially
dependent upon laypeople, then coercive control (direct control of food
and resources) sits entirely in the hands of lay people who can decide
at any time to withhold resources. There are even many rules within the
Vinaya about hoarding resources (for example, excess robes) or even
having particularly nice items (say, a jeweled alms bowl). Later, the
sangha would integrate with various state powers such as King Ashoka and
various kingdoms in South East Asia. Gaining, to a greater or lesser
extent, patronage from a state. In this way the sangha becomes beholden
to the state, coercively controlled not by the laypeople yet by the
state whose favor is necessary to maintain positive status lest the
order be culled as has happened at various points in Buddhism’s history,
we might think of China’s oppression.
In some cases Buddhism would develop a theocracy, as seen in Tibet where
coercive control is directly in the hands of the order. Certainly there
has been a development and empowering of hierarchy within the order
after The Buddha’s death.
We can look now at the third point: that perhaps horizontal
organizations are ineffective, either broadly or specifically in the
case of a religious monastic order. I won’t spend time here arguing the
veracity of horizontal effectiveness, rather suggest readers investigate
Anarchy Works and Worshipping Power by Peter Gelderloos.
If we are asking whether hierarchy is effective specifically within the
order, we might be thinking of the student/teacher dynamic as one. Yet
I’ll contend, at least within the original context of the order, that
this relationship was not coercive. One might follow a teacher based on
the belief that in doing so one gains knowledge and training that is
otherwise very hard to attain on one’s own. In the original context
there were no established monasteries which hosted monastics year round,
nomadic wandering was the norm. A student could at any time choose to
leave a teacher they find unsuitable and not find their resources in
jeopardy, the way a contemporary student might if they leave a monastery
and do not practice alms round.
In this way a hierarchy that developed from the establishment of
monasteries as primary sources for resources endangers an individual
monastic’s ability to survive in the event they leave said monastery.
Effectively creating a situation of coercion: stay here or you won’t get
food. This was not part of The Buddha’s original order and is a later
development, giving credence that whatever hierarchy was present
originally, looked and functioned very differently than it does today.
The fourth point primarily centers around bids the order may have made
to maintain itself and spread the Dhamma. We know that King Ashoka’s
conversion and subsequent sponsorship of Buddhism is a major factor in
Buddhism’s survival and spread, contrasted with Jainism which (AFAIK)
never gained such state support. It’s hard to argue that if this was the
intention, it wasn’t effective. After all, Buddhism has spread far and
wide whilst Jainism remains confined to parts of India.
We might concede that seeking sponsorship of the state was a temporary
survival measure for the order, especially after invasion wiped out
every original school other than Theravada. In order to survive the
sangha may have invested great time in seeking stability and protection
from kingdoms in South East Asia. Yet Buddhism now seems firmly rooted
as a major world religion, conversion continues to grow particularly in
America and Europe. I’ll put forward the claim that whatever utility
state sponsorship had for Buddhism before, it has now become a force
railing against the Dhammic values of being unburdensome and unfettered.
Buddhist hierarchy and state sponsorship should be dismantled and
abandoned. To allow for a more effective, unfettered and unburdensome
transmission and practice of The Dhamma. The original order’s version of
hierarchy was weak and all power was primarily in the hands of lay
people, hierarchy later developed to maintain the power and influence of
the order, temporarily to its benefit and detrimental in the long run.
It’s time we shift Buddhism towards the well being and freedom enabled
by Anarchism.