The Next Buddha Will Be
Transcript of The Next Buddha Will Be
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
1/14
Michel Bauwens
ABSTRACT. Religious and spir-
itual expression is always embed-
ded in societal structures. If social
structures are moving toward the
form of distributed networks, what
kind of evolution of spiritual expres-
sion can be expected? In this article,
the author describes the general societal
changes emerging and that he expects
to become more prevalent in the future.
He also examines to what degree these
changes will affect individual and col-
lective spiritual expression. The explana-
tion of the peer-to-peer dynamic aids
in understanding its application tospirituality. The author also discusses
concrete examples of spiritual move-
ments and initiatives that are spe-
cifically informed by peer-to-peer
values and practices.
Keywords: collective, individu-
al, peer-to-peer dynamic, spiritual
expression, spirituality
Emergence of the peer-to-peer
principle
Spiritual expression, and the reli-
gious organizational context in which it
occurs, is embedded in a social structure.
For example, tribal forms of religion
such as animism and shamanism do not
have elaborate hierarchical structures
because they arose in societal structures
that had fairly egalitarian, kinship-based
relations. In contrast, large organized
religions, which arose in hierarchically
based societies, have intricate hierarchi-
cal structures, monological conceptions
of truth, and expectations of obediencefrom their members. The Protestant Ref-
ormation and its offshoots took on many
democratic aspects that corresponded
with the rise of a new urban class under
merchant and industrial capitalism, and
the many offshoots of the New Age
movements have adopted contemporary
capitalist practices of paid workshops
The NextBuddha Will
Be a Collective:Spir i tualExpressionin the
Peer-to-PeerEra
3 4 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
2/14
and trainings (i.e., making spiritual
experience a consumable commodity).
In this article, I argue that contemporary
society is evolving toward a dominance
of distributed networks with peer-to-
peer (P2P) based social relations and
that this will affect spiritual expression
in fundamental ways.
Human organizational formats can be
laid out as network structures, outlining
the relationships between members of a
community. A common network format
is hierarchical, in which relations and
actions are initiated from the center.
It is graphically represented by a star
or pyramid. Another common network
format is the decentralized network, in
which agents actions and relationships
are constrained by prior hubs. In decen-
tralized networks, power devolves to
different groups or entities that must
find a balance together, and agents gen-erally belong to the different decen-
tralized groups, which represent their
interests. Last, distributed networks are
graphically represented by the same
hub-and-spoke model, but they contain
a crucial differentiating characteristic.
In distributed networks there are hubs
(i.e., nodes with a higher density of con-
nections), and these hubs remain vol-
untary. This is similar to the difference
between taking a plane that is traveling
via a hub airportin which passengers
have no choice but to take the flight
path that has been decided by someoneelseand the freedom that passengers
have in a carin which they can pass
through the hub if they want, but they
can also decide to go around it.
My first contention is that distributed
networks are becoming a dominant for-
mat of human technological and organi-
zational frameworks. The Internet can be
thought of as a point-to-point or end-to-
end network. Emerging micromedia enti-
ties such as wikis and blogs allow many
human agents to express themselves
by passing former decentralized mass
media. Team-based, organized projectgroups are increasingly being used in
the workplace. In a distributed network,
the peers are free to connect and act, and
organizational characteristics emerge
from the choices of individuals.
The second framework I use is the
quaternary relational typology proposed
by anthropologist Alan Page Fiske, who
describes this extensively in his land-
mark treatise, Structures of Social Life:
The Four Elementary Forms of Human
Relations (1991). According to Fiske,
there are four main ways that humans
can relate to each other, and this typol-
ogy is valid across different cultures
and epochs as an underlying grammar.
Cultures and civilizations will choose
different combinations, but one format
is generally dominant.
Equality matching is the logic of the
gift economy, which was the dominant
format of the tribal era. According to
this logic, the person who gives obtains
prestige, and the person who receives
feels an obligation to return the favor so
the equality of the relationship can be
maintained. Tribal cultures have elabo-
rate ritualized and festive mechanisms
organized around the ideas of reciproc-
ity and symmetry that allow this processto happen.
The second relational logic is author-
ity ranking, which corresponds to the
human need to compare. This ranking
may be the result of birth, force, coer-
cion, nomination by a prior hierarchy,
credentials, or merit. Authority rank-
ing is the main logic of imperial and
tributary hierarchies such as the feudal
system that dominated human society
before the advent of capitalism and par-
liamentary democracy. Strong members
of society protect and provide for the
safety of the weak, who, in exchange,pay tribute. These societies were moved
by the concept of a life debt, from the
human to the divine order sustaining it
and from the mass of the living to the
representatives of that divine order, who
required tribute to extinguish that debt.
The organizing principle is centrality,
represented by kingship, and redistribu-
tion of resources by a hierarchy.
The third format is market pricing,
which is based on the neutral exchange
of comparable values. This is the logic
of the capitalist market system and the
impersonal relations on which its eco-nomic system is based.
Last, there is the logic of communal
shareholding, which is based on gen-
eralized or nonreciprocal exchange. In
this form of human relations, members
collectively and voluntarily contribute
to a common resource in exchange for
the free use of that resource. Examples
are medieval agricultural commons,
the mutualities of the labor move-
ment, and the theoretical notion of
communism used by Karl Marx (but
not the hierarchical authority ranking
practice of regimes that abusively use
this nomenclature).
There is a relationship between the
organizational triarchy and the quater-
nary relational grammar. The tribal era
was based on small, kinship-based dis-
tributed networks that had little rela-
tion to each other; imperial and feudal
regimes used the hierarchical formats,
and capitalist societies used mostly
decentralized political structures (e.g.,
the balance of power of democratic gov-
ernance) and competition between firms.
In contrast, current social structures are
increasingly moving toward manifold,
affinity-based distributed networks that
are interconnected on a global scale.Emergence of the peer-to-peer format
In the current historical configura-
tion, technological infrastructures often
take the form of a distributed network,
such as the point-to-point Internet, or
the generalized self-publishing features
of the Web, which allow any user to
produce and diffuse content. Human-
ity therefore has a technology with the
fundamental effect of allowing the glob-
al coordination of small teams, which
can now work on global projects based
on affinity. A well-known expressionof this phenomenon is the production
of the alternative computer operating
system Linux and the free, peer-edited
encyclopedia Wikipedia. More than one
billion connected people are engaged in
such collective projects, which produce
all kinds of social value. The alter-glo-
balization movement is one expression
of a movement borne out of such net-
works, which can globally organize and
mobilize without access to decentral-
ized mass media, using a wide variety of
micromedia resources.
Michel Bauwens is the founder of the Foundationfor Peer to Peer Alternatives, which researches thedirect social production of value through peer pro-duction, peer governance, and peer property. Thistranslates itself into the field of spirituality throughparticipatory formats of cooperative inquiry, whichreject a priori truths protected by hierarchicalestablishments. Mr. Bauwens can be contacted [email protected] 2007 Heldref Publications
SPRING2007 35
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
3/14
3 6 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4
In the business environment, diffuse
social innovation (i.e., innovation as an
emerging byproduct of networked com-
munities rather than internally funded,
entrepreneurial research and develop-
ment) is increasingly important, and
asymmetric competition is emerging
between for-benefit institutions based
on communities of peer producers,
which are successfully competing with
traditional for-profit companies. For-
profit companies are adapting and using
practices pioneered by such commu-
nities.1 These processes are similar to
when imperial slaveholders freed their
slaves into serfs and feudal lords spon-
sored merchants and entrepreneurs.
The P2P relational dynamic in dis-
tributed networks is creating three
(the now mostly defunct socialist sys-
tems) nor corporate hierarchies driven
by profit. It can therefore properly be
called a third mode of production.
Peer governance refers to techniques
used to resolve conflicts and manage
such projects, which are characterized
by the absence of prior hierarchy or rep-
resentational negotiations between stake-
holder groups. Because peer producers
operate in small groups but can coordi-
nate globally, they can use direct deci-
sion making by participants. Because
this is neither a classic hierarchy nor a
representational process of negotiation
between decentralized groups, it can also
be called a third mode of governance.
Peer property consists of the legal
and institutional formats that peer proj-
putting every change back in the com-
mon pool.
The circulation of the common is the
process whereby open and free raw mate-
rial is used as input for a participatory
process of production and governance,
which results in commons-oriented out-
put, which becomes open and free mate-
rial for a next round. Therefore, three
powerful social movements emerge, rep-
resenting the interests of emerging peer
producers and arising in practically all
social domains. These new movements
are organized around the promotion and
demand of three principles: (1) open and
free movements (e.g., the free software
movement, Open Yoga, Open Reiki), (2)
participatory movements (e.g., spiritu-
ally oriented peer circles), and (3) com-
mons-oriented movements.
P2P dynamics are not limited to the
production of economic value but canalso be used in every domain of human
life, including the common production of
spiritual knowledge. Before I explain the
latter, I review the general characteristics
of the new mode, which overturns almost
every premise of contemporary industrial
civilization. I then apply these character-
istics to the pursuit of spiritual experi-
ence or knowledge and examine how they
affect the organization of this pursuit.
Characteristics of peer production in
social and economic life
Examination of how peer productionprojects operate brings into focus many
reversals not only from the traditional
mode of operating corporate or public
institutions but also from nongovern-
mental organizations emanating from
civil society. At the root of the differ-
ent functioning of peer projects is the
concept ofequipotentiality, which was
defined by Jorge N. Ferrer, Ramon
V. Albareda, and Marina T. Romero
(2004) as meaning that human beings
are not ranked according to one crite-
rion or as a totality, but that they are
considered to consist of a multitude ofskills and capabilities, none of which
in itself is better than another. In the
context of a peer project, potential par-
ticipants are considered too complex a
mix of skills and experiences to predict
who can perform a certain task. The
solution is to divide any project in
the greatest possible array of modules,
Current social s t ructures are
increasingly moving toward
manifold, af f ini ty-based
distr ibuted networks that
are interconnected on a
global scale.
new social processes that respectively
represent production, governance, and
property. Peer production refers to the
ability to produce in common or to
share individual creative expression as
communities of peer producers. Pricing,
hierarchy, and democracy are differ-ent ways of allocating scarce resources,
and because peer production operates
in the immaterial sphere of content cre-
ation, characterized by marginal costs
of reproduction, it needs neither pricing
nor hierarchy to allocate such resources.
It is therefore a mode of production
that is driven by neither state planning
ects use to socially reproduce them-
selves and defend against private or
public appropriation. It uses collective
choice systems (e.g., rankings, ratings,
algorithms) that aim to prevent the crys-
tallization of a collective individual that
would rise out of the community anddominate it. It uses two main types
of common property against private
appropriation. Sharing licenses such as
the creative commons allow sovereign
individuals to determine the degree of
sharing of their creative material, and
commons licenses such as the general
public license carry the obligation of
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
4/14
SPRING2007 37
which can be carried out separately but
nevertheless coordinated as one proj-
ect. Participants can then self-select
their tasks without any a priori control
of their credentials (i.e., anticredential-
ism), giving rise to the mode of distrib-
uted production that differs from the
traditional division of labor.
Given that there is not an a priori
selection mechanism, how do members
ensure the quality of the groups work
and carry out a selection for perfor-
mance? They couple distributed control
with this distributed production. This
concept can be called communal vali-
dation and differs from the credentialist
peer-review process (e.g., in scientific
publishing). In addition, peer proj-
ects are characterized by holoptism, or
total transparency of the project, which
stands in contrast with the panoptism
of hierarchical projects (i.e., the avail-ability of information only to those
deemed to have a need to know, and
with only the top of the hierarchy hav-
ing a full view of the project). In con-
trast, peers have access both vertically
(the aims, the vision) and horizontally
(who does and did what) from their par-
ticular angle. Every change in code in
Linux or change of word in Wikipedia
is available for review and linked to a
recognized author. This method has a
stunning number of reversals from the
traditional way of performing tasks and
organizing work, yet the system is moreproductive in terms of performance,
more participative in governance, and
more distributive in terms of property
than are its rivals.
Equipotentiality, anticredentialism,
self-selection, communal validation,
and holoptism are key characteristics
of the P2P mode of producing the com-
mon. Unlike the industrial mode of pro-
duction, which applies feudal hierarchi-
cal modes to organization and is mostly
fit for producing economic value, and
unlike the democratic mode of gover-
nance, which applies only to the politi-cal realm, the P2P mode of production
and governance can be applied to every
human domain, and this is a radical
advance in terms of participation. Self-
governed communities are now pos-
sible, not only in economic and political
projects but also in the construction of
collective spiritual knowledge.
The new participatory spirituality,
or the peer production of spiritual
knowledge
New value constellations
Before I elaborate more concretely
on how peer-production characteristics
apply in the spiritual realm, I stress that
a new P2P spirituality is not only the
result of an objective new way of doing
things (i.e., a new spiritual outgrowth of
a new material basis); it is the result of
deep changes in human consciousness,
some of which have already occurred
and some of which are still occurring,
all of them affecting many people. Some
of these changes occurred before the
emergence of the new P2P logic, some
as a result of its emergence, and others
the result of the continued use of P2P
tools, which inevitably change the form
of human consciousness, as does everytool. Broadly speaking, I argue that P2P
logic is the outgrowth of deep changes
in ontology (ways of being), epistemol-
ogy (ways of knowing), and axiology
(value constellations).
In terms of ontology, there is a deep
change concerning the vision of the
human, which has been prepared by a
long string of contemporary thinkers.
Despite the current neoliberal domi-
nance in establishment politics and eco-
nomics, the old idea at the basis of
market capitalist society and of demo-
cratic liberal order has been profoundlychallenged. The conception that people
are all separate individuals needing to
be socialized through institutions and
acting out of personal utility is being
replaced by visions that stress the con-
nectedness of people. Individuals are
always already connected with peers,
and that is how they mediate their rela-
tionships with institutions. It is no longer
a matter of institutions and corporations
broadcasting or managing masses of
isolated individuals; it is partly a matter
of a change of consciousness but also a
result of having a communication tech-nology that connects people. The annual
trust barometer of the Edelman public
relations firm found a dramatic change
from trust in institutions to trust in peo-
ple just like you (i.e., peers; Edelman
2007). This new vision of connected-
ness gives rise not to a generalized altru-
ism, but to a vision that social systems
must be designed so that personal inter-
est can converge with collective inter-
ests. These principles are embedded in
the new generation of social software
and social networks. Cooperative indi-
vidualism is an apt description of this
new mentality, which is most perva-
sive in the newest generation of young
adults, the digital natives or Millenial
Generation (i.e., those who turned 20 in
the year 2000 and after) who grew up
with the Internet and collective gaming
and for whom sharing is a default state
(Groen and Boschma 2006).
In terms of epistemology, concep-
tions of an objective material universe
that can be known from a single objec-
tive framework or perspective have sys-
tematically been undermined by post-
modern philosophers (and earlier, with
Marx noting the deformations through
the social unconscious and SigmundFreud noting that the personal uncon-
scious meant that people are not the
masters of their own houses). They
have argued that there is no absolute
framework, but only elements in a sys-
tem that can be defined only in rela-
tion to one another. The hierarchical
card catalog, which implies that there
is one way of knowing the world, led to
first decentralized databases that could
be queried through different facets and
then to completely distributed folkson-
omies, collaborative tagging systems.
In these new distributed systems ofknowledge, every individual frames his
or her own world but has access to how
other individuals have framed the same
knowledge objects and all other objects
in their own accessible tagging systems.
Independent researchers and scholars
can now peer into each others minds
and frameworks, implying that there is
not one way to interpret reality, but an
infinite number of singular worldviews.
Truth, then, becomes a matter of inte-
grating, encountering, and exchanging
with others and their worldviews, so as
to look at the world and its subjects andobjects from a variety of viewpoints,
each illuminating reality in a different
way. Tensions and paradoxes that arise
can be confronted through dialogue.
Certain types of knowledge, such as
physical sciences, still use tradition-
al methodologies, but the human and
social sciences are influenced by these
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
5/14
3 8 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4
new attitudes, which govern how many
individuals make sense of their world.
In terms of axiology, or new value
systems, I have already described the
new emerging cooperative individu-
alism, but the world of peer produc-
tion and governance itself gives rise to
new types of social movements, which
adhere to three different but interrelated
paradigms, which are also value sys-
tems: (1) the open and free paradigm,
which desires that human knowledge be
freely sharable and modifiable; (2) the
participatory paradigm, which asks for
a maximum extension of the number of
contributors, each according to his abil-
ity; and (3) the commons-oriented para-
digm, which wants to produce directly
for use value (not exchange value) and
wants the results to be shared. It is hard
to say how many people share the full
scale of these new values, but theirnumber is growing, and the number of
movements and initiatives that can be
catalogued in this way is growing expo-
nentially. These new values and move-
ments correspond to the reproduction
cycle of the new social system of peer
production, governance, and property.
No peer production is possible with-
out the availability of open and free
raw material with which to work (input
side); this raw material is then used par-
ticipatively (process side); and the result
of the common work is then protected
through the use of commons-orientedinstitutions and legal forms (the output
side). The output side effectively creates
new open and free material that can be
used to perpetuate the cycle.
General characteristics of
participatory spirituality
What does this all mean for the emer-
gence of new forms of spirituality, in
terms of both personal experience and
new social formats for organizing spiri-
tual life?
There is overwhelming evidence thatthe evolution of consciousness is march-ing on, moving from collective living,where the individual was totally embed-ded in the life patterns of the collective;through a gradual, often painful, processof individuation, with the emphasis onthe will and sovereignty of the individ-ual; to what is emerging in our time: aconscious return to collectivism whereindividuated, or self-actualised, individu-
als voluntarilyand temporarilypooltheir consciousness in a search for theelusive collective intelligence which canhelp us to overcome the stupendous chal-lenges now facing us as a species as aconsequence of how our developmentaltrajectory has manifested on the physicalplane thus far. . . . So human evolution hassomething to do with human conscious-
ness awakening first to itself, then to itsown evolution and to a recognition andfinally an embodied experience of theways in which we are organically partof a larger whole. As we enter this newstage of individual/collective awakening,individuals are being increasingly calledto practice the new life-form composed ofgroups of individuated individuals merg-ing their collective intelligence.2
Next, I review the changes resulting
from the new ontological, epistemo-
logical, and axiological positioning and
from the principles of peer production
and examine how they can be applied to
the production of spiritual knowledge.
If people accept the new ontologi-
cal and epistemological convictions that
there are no absolute reference points
or frameworks and is no objective real-
ity, can they still accept fixed cosmol-
ogies and religions? If people accept
that knowing is a matter of co-creation
with other humans and holding different
frameworks and that approaching truth
is a matter of confronting those differ-
ences in frameworks and how they illu-
minate realities in different ways, can
they still accept fixed methodologiesand pathways, which lead to inevitable
conclusions about the truth? Or would
they expect co-created truth to be open-
ended? If people want to act and live
according to the peer principle of equal
worth of all persons, can they accept
the deep-seated rankism of traditional
approaches to religion? In all likeli-
hood, new forms of spirituality will
have the open, free, participatory, and
commons-oriented aspects that emerg-
ing P2P forms of consciousness want to
appear in the world.
An open and free approach to spiritu-ality would not likely accept proprietary
approaches to spiritual knowledge. It
would expect that the code and texts are
freely approachable and even modifi-
able. It would not accept the copyright
protections of spiritual texts nor their
unavailability. The pathways to spiri-
tual experiencing would be not hidden
from sight, but publicly available. The
methodologies would be available for
trial and experimentation. A participato-
ry approach would mean that everyone
would be invited to participate in the
spiritual search, without a priori selec-
tion, and that the threshold of such par-
ticipation would be kept as low as pos-
sible. Appropriate methodologies would
be available for different levels of expe-
rience. A commons-oriented approach
would lead to co-created knowledge to
be available in a common pool on which
others can build and confront.
How would the concrete principles
of peer productionequipotentiality,
self-selection, communal validation,
and holoptismapply to the production
of spiritual knowledge? Equipotential-
ity suggests that people should judge
others not according to one purported
essence (e.g., as a spiritual master oran enlightened being), but as a wide
mixture of different skills and abilities,
none of which elevate that person to a
higher human status. Rather, the skill
of any social system is to draw the best
from all individuals so they can engage
their skills and passion to a task of their
choosing. One possible interpretation
of this principle is that enlightenment
or spiritual mastery is only one particu-
lar skill, a particular technique of con-
sciousness. It is important, it deserves
respect, and others can learn from it.
However, as a great sportsperson orartist is not necessarily overall a better
human being, neither is a spiritual mas-
ter. Furthermore, guidance from such a
master must be specific: an invitation
for practice and experience, a witness-
ing on his part, but not a fixed authority
on the lives of followers. Individuals
are free to explore this guidance, but the
individual and the communities are still
in charge of building collective spiritual
freedom without an a priori fixed path.
The corollary of self-selection and
communal validation is also clear. No
spiritual path can be imposed; individu-als freely choose the particular injunc-
tions they want to follow or with which
they want to experiment. Nor are indi-
viduals or communities bound to tradi-
tion, although they can choose to work
with a particular framework. In a glo-
balized context, conscious of the vari-
ous frameworks available, the search for
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
6/14
SPRING2007 39
The search for spir i tual truth may entail
aspects of a contributory spir i tuality, in
which the individual, informed about the
specific frameworks, can choose between
a wide variety of psychotechnologies in a
quest to f ind which combination of practices
and insights is the most bef i t t ing of his
or her needs and capabil i t ies.
spiritual truth may entail aspects of a
contributory spirituality, in which the
individual, informed about the specific
frameworks, can choose between a wide
variety of psychotechnologies in a quest
to find which combination of practices
and insights is the most befitting of his
or her needs and capabilities. As Fer-
rer (2001) argued, not only is there no
single path, not only are there no mul-
tiple paths to a similar goal or achieve-
ment, the goal itself is the fruit of the
co-creation of searchers and their com-
munities. Individuals have approached
their quest in this way in the past few
decades, particularly those termed cul-
tural creatives by Paul H. Ray and
Developments in theory: Participatory
and relational spirituality approaches
by Jorge Ferrer and John Heron
John Heron makes a strong case for a
relational approach to spirituality:
[T]he spirituality of persons is developedand revealed primarily in their relations
with other persons. If you regard spiritualityprimarily as the fruit of individual practices,such as meditative attainment, then you canhave the gross anomaly of a spiritual per-son who is an interpersonal oppressor, andthe possibility of spiritual traditions thatare oppression-prone. If you regard spiritu-ality as centrally about liberating relationsbetween people, then a new era of partici-pative religion opens up, and this calls for aradical restructuring and reappraisal of tra-
(5) It is focused on worthwhile practicalpurposes that promote a flourishing human-ity-cum-ecosystem; that is, it is rooted in anextended doctrine of rights with regard tosocial and ecological liberation.
(6) It embraces peer-to-peer, participatoryforms of decision-making. The latter inparticular can be seen as a core disciplinein relational spirituality, burning up a lotof the privatized ego. Participatory deci-sion-making involves the integration ofautonomy (deciding for oneself), co-oper-ation (deciding with others) and hierarchy(deciding for others). As the bedrock ofrelational spirituality, I return to it at theend of the paper.
(7) It honours the gradual emergence anddevelopment of peer-to-peer forms ofassociation and practice, in every walk of
ditional spiritual maps and routes. Certainlythere are important individualistic modes ofdevelopment that do not necessarily directlyinvolve engagement with other people, suchas contemplative competence, and physi-cal fitness. But these are secondary andsupportive of those that do, and are in turnenhanced by co-inquiry with others.
On this overall view, spirituality is locat-ed in the interpersonal heart of the humancondition where people co-operate toexplore meaning, build relationship andmanifest creativity through collaborativeaction inquiry into multi-modal integra-tion and consummation.3
Among the characteristics of such rela-
tional spirituality, Heron outlines how
related it is to the P2P forms.
life, in industry, in knowledge generation,in religion, and many more.
(8) It affirms the role of both initiatinghierarchy, and spontaneously surfacingand rotating hierarchy among the peers,in such emergence.3
Heron does not deny the individual
aspects of spirituality, but he stresses
that they are secondary to their expres-sion in the first form (i.e., the relational
expression of it).
Herons eighth characteristic mer-
its development, as it more precisely
defines the relationship between auton-
omy, hierarchy, and cooperation:
[L]iving spirit manifests as a dynamicinterplay between autonomy, hierarchy
S. R. Anderson (2001). When there is
no coercion, it seems natural that people
choose to approach their spiritual life.
The principle of communal validation
suggests that people may unite in groups
or peer circles, decide in common on
certain exploratory paths, and exchange
their experiences. Last, holoptism sug-
gests a new openness in the contents,practices, and goals of the different
systems and suggests that esoteric will
no longer mean secret or unavailable,
only different equipotential capacities
to reach certain levels of experience and
skill. This idea is not farfetched, given
that most esoteric material is now avail-
able either in print or online.
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
7/14
4 0 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4
and co-operation. It emerges throughautonomous people each of whom canidentify their own idiosyncratic trueneeds and interests; each of whom canalso think hierarchically in terms of whatvalues promote the true needs and inter-ests of the whole community; and each ofwhom can co-operate withthat is, listento, engage with, and negotiate agreed
decisions withtheir peers, celebratingdiversity and difference as integral to gen-uine unity. Hierarchy here is the creativeleadership which seeks to promote thevalues of autonomy and co-operation in apeer to peer association. Such leadership,as in the free software movement men-tioned earlier, is exercised in two ways.First, by the one or more people whotake initiatives to set up such an associa-tion. And second, once the association isup and running, as spontaneous rotatingleadership among the peers, when anyonetakes initiatives that further enhance theautonomy and co-operation of other par-ticipating members.3
Ferrers Revisioning Transpersonal
Theory (2001) is the key classic to have
reformulated a participatory vision of
spirituality from the tradition of transper-
sonal psychology. He deconstructs the
nonrelational biases of transpersonal
psychology and reconstructs a new
vision based on participation. Howev-
er, he did not emphasize the relational
aspects of participatory spirituality. He
stresses the importance of relational
spiritual work in later work that deals
with more practical, less philosophi-
cal issues than Revisioning Transper-sonal Theory (e.g., Ferrer, Romero, and
Albareda 2005). In talks and confer-
ences, Ferrer has introduced the idea
of participatory spirituality in terms of
three forms of co-creation: (1) intrap-
ersonal co-creation (i.e., of the various
human dimensions working together
creatively as a team), (2) interpersonal
co-creation (i.e., of human beings work-
ing together as peers in solidarity and
mutual respect), and (3) transpersonal
co-creation (i.e., of both human dimen-
sions and collaborative human beings
interacting with the Mystery in the co-creation of spiritual insights, practic-
es, expanded forms of liberation, and
spiritual worlds). Congruence exists
between Herons ideas and Ferrers sec-
ond aspect of co-creation.
Jeffrey J. Kripal (2005) noted the
important political implications of Fer-
rers ideas:
Ferrers participatory vision and its turnfrom subjective experience to proces-sual event possesses some fairly radicalpolitical implications. Within it, a peren-nialist hierarchical monarchy (the ruleof the One through the great chain ofBeing) that locates all real truth in thefeudal past (or, at the very least, in somepresent hierarchical culture) has been
superseded by a quite radical participa-tory democracy in which the Real revealsitself not in the Great Man, Perfect Saintor God-King (or the Perennialist Scholar)but in radical relation and the sacred pres-ent. Consequently, the religious life isnot about returning to some golden ageof scripture or metaphysical absolute; itis about co-creating new revelations inthe present, always, of course, in criticalinteraction with the past. Such a practiceis dynamic, uncertain, and yet hopefulatikkun-like theurgical healing of the worldand of God. (Kripal 2005)
I now quote from a critique of Fer-
rer by Kripal, because even though he
uses different concepts, he confirms the
equipotentiality principle. This princi-
ple affirms that mystical skills are only
one set of skills, they do not position
that person as being absolutely above
another, and spiritual skills are not equal
to other skills, such as ethical ones.
Ferrer . . . ultimately adopts a very posi-tive assessment of the traditions ethicalstatus, suggesting in effect that the reli-gions have been more successful in find-ing common moral ground than doctrinalor metaphysical agreement, and that mosttraditions have called for (if never faith-
fully or fully enacted) a transcendence ofdualistic self-centeredness or narcissism.It is here that I must become suspicious.Though Ferrer himself is refreshingly freeof this particular logic (it is really moreof a rhetoric), it is quite easy and quitecommon in the transpersonal literatureto argue for the essential moral nature ofmystical experience by being very care-ful about whom one bestows the (quitemodern) title mystic. It is an entirelycircular argument, of course: One sim-ply declares (because one believes) thatmysticism is moral, then one lists fromliterally tens of thousands (millions?) ofpossible recorded cases a few, maybe a
few dozen, exemplars who happen to fitones moral standards (or better, whosehistorical description is sketchy enoughto hide any and all evidence that wouldfrustrate those standards), and, voil, onehas proven that mysticism is indeedmoral. Any charismatic figure or saintthat violates ones normsand there willalways be a very large, loudly scream-ing crowd hereone simply labels notreally a mystic or conveniently ignores
altogether. Put differently, it is the con-structed category of mysticism itselfthat mutually constructs a moral mysti-cism, not the historical evidence, whichis always and everywhere immeasurablymore ambivalent. Ferrer, as is evidentin such moments as his thought experi-ment with the Theravada retreat, seesright through most of this. He knows
perfectly well that perennialism simplydoes not correspond to the historical data.What he does not perhaps see so clearly isthat a moral perennialism sneaks throughthe back door of his own conclusions.Thus, whereas he rightly rejects all talkof a common core, he can neverthelessspeak of a common Ocean of Emancipa-tion that all the contemplative traditionsapproach from their different ontologicalshores.
Kripal (2005) concludes:
Ferrer argues that we must realize thatour goal can never be simply the recoveryor reproduction of some past sense of the
sacred, for we cannot ignore that mostreligious traditions are still beset not onlyby intolerant exclusivist and absolutisttendencies, but also by patriarchy, author-itarianism, dogmatism, conservatism,transcendentalism, body-denial, sexualrepression, and hierarchical institutions.Put simply, the contemplative traditionsof the past have too often functioned aselaborate and sacralized techniques fordissociating consciousness.
Once again, I think this is exactly wherewe need to be, with a privileging of theethical over the mystical and an insistenceon human wholeness as human holiness.I would only want to further radicalize
Ferrers vision by underscoring how her-meneutical it is, that is, how it functionsas a creative re-visioning and reform-ing of the past instead of as a simplereproduction of or fundamentalist fantasyabout some nonexistent golden age. Putdifferently, in my view, there is no sharedOcean of Emancipation in the history ofreligions. Indeed, from many of our ownmodern perspectives, the waters of thepast are barely potable, as what most ofthe contemplative traditions have meantby emancipation or salvation is not atall what we would like to imply by thoseterms today. It is, after all, frightfully easyto be emancipated from the world or tobecome one with a deity or ontologicalabsolute and leave all the worlds gross-ly unjust social structures and practices(racism, gender injustice, homophobia,religious bigotry, colonialism, caste, classdivision, environmental degradation, etc.)comfortably in place.
I add an important conclusion to this
critique: the shift toward relational and
participatory spirituality also necessarily
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
8/14
SPRING2007 41
has a negative moment (i.e., a phase of
critique against any and all forms of
spiritual authoritarianism).
Theoretical evolution toward rela-
tional and participatory forms of spiri-
tuality has not stood still. Bruce Alder-
man, in a summary essay, describes the
new trend toward exploring intersub-
jectivity through personal and interper-
sonal forms of inquiry.4 He describes
Christian De Quinceys books, Radi-
cal Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of
Matter (2002) and Radical Knowing:
Understanding Consciousness through
Relationship (2005); the deep, mysti-
cal intersubjective work of Beatrice
Butreau; and the radical nature of the
inquiries by the approach of Tartangh
Tulku (1978).
The primacy of relationality and the
collective field
The modern articulation of individu-
ality, based on an autonomous self in a
society that he himself creates through
the social contract, has been changing
in postmodernity. Gilbert Simondon,
a French philosopher of technology,
argued that it was typical for moder-
nity to extract the individual dimension
of every aspect of reality or of things
and processes that are also related.
What is needed to renew thought, he
argued, was not to go back to premod-
ern holism, but to systematically build
on the proposition that everything is
related while retaining the achievements
of modern thought (i.e., the central-
ity of individuality). Thus, individuality
is seen as constituted by relations and
from relations.
The proposition that the individual
is now seen as always and already part
of various social fieldsas a singular
composite being no longer in need of
socialization but, rather, in need of indi-
viduationis one of the main achieve-
ments of postmodern thought. Atomistic
individualism is rejected in favor of the
view of a relational self, a new balance
between individual agency and collec-
tive communion.
A third step is a necessary comple-
ment and advance to postmodern
thought: to be uncontent with a recogni-
tion of individuality and its foundationin relationality and to recognize the
level of the collective (i.e., the field in
which the relationships occur). If one
sees only relationships, he forgets about
the whole, which is society itself and its
subfields. Society is more than the sum
of its relationship parts. Society sets
up a protocol in which these relation-
ships can occur; it forms the agents in
their subjectivity and consists of norms
that enable or disable certain relation-
ships. There are agents, relationships,
and fields. To integrate the subjective
element of human intentionality, it is
necessary to introduce a fourth element:
the object of the sociality.
Human agents never relate only in
the abstract; agents always relate around
an object in a concrete fashion. Swarm-
ing insects do not seem to have such an
object; they follow instructions and sig-
nals without a view of the whole, unlike
mammals. For example, bands of wolves
congregate around the object of the prey.
The object energizes relationships and
mobilizes action. Humans can have more
abstract objects that are located in a tem-
poral future, such as an object of desire.
They perform the object in their minds
and activate themselves to realize the
desire individually or collectively. P2P
projects organize themselves around
such a common project. My P2P theory
is an attempt to create an object that caninspire social and political change.
In sum, for a comprehensive view of
the collective, it is customary to distin-
guish (1) the totality of relations, (2) the
field in which these relations operate,
up to the macrofield of society, which
establishes the protocol of what is pos-
sible and not, and (3) the object of the
relationship (object-oriented sociality;
i.e., the preformed ideal that inspires the
common action). This turn to the collec-
tive that the emergence of P2P represents
does not present a loss of individuality or
individualism. Rather, it transcends andincludes individualism and collectivism
in a new unity that I call cooperative
individualism. The cooperativity is not
necessarily intentional (i.e., the result of
conscious altruism) but is constitutive of
being, and the best applications of P2P
are based on this idea. Similar to Adam
Smiths theory of the invisible hand, the
best designed collaborative systems take
advantage of the self-interest of the users,
turning it into collective benefit.
This recognition distinguishes trans-
formative P2P conceptions from regres-
sive interpretations harking back to pre-modern communion. This distinction is
well expressed by Charlene Spretnak,
cited by Heron in a debate with the
conception of an inclusional self by Ted
Lumley of http://goodshare.org:
Regarding the ecological/cosmologicalsense of uniqueness coupled with inter-subjectivity and interbeing . . . one can
The proposition that the individual
is now seen as always and already
part of various social fieldsas a
singular composite being no
longer in need of socialization
but, rather, in need of
individuationis one of the main
achievements of postmodern
thought.
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
9/14
4 2 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4
accurately speak of the autonomy of anindividual only by incorporating a senseof the dynamic web of relationships thatare constitutive for that being at a givenmoment. (T. Lumley, personal communi-cation, May 2005)
The balance is moving toward the col-
lective. However, if new forms of col-
lectivism recognize individuality andeven individualism, they are not merely
individualist in nature; they are not col-
lective individuals. Rather, the new col-
lective expresses itself in the creation of
the common. The collective is no longer
the local holistic and oppressive com-
munity, and it is no longer the contrac-
tually based society with its institutions,
which are now also seen as oppressive.
The new commons is not a unified and
transcendent collective individual, but a
collection of a large number of singular
projects constituting a multitude.
This change in ontology and epis-
temologyin ways of feeling and
being and of knowing and apprehend-
ing the worldhas been prefigured
among social scientists and philoso-
phers, including people in the hard sci-
ences such as physics and biology. An
important change is the overthrow of
the Cartesian subjectobject split. The
individual self no longer looks at the
world as an object. Because postmo-
dernity has established that the indi-
vidual is composed and traversed by
numerous social fields (e.g., power, theunconscious, class relations, gender)
and because the individual has become
aware of this, the subject is now seen
(after death as an essence and a his-
torical construct had been announced
by Michel Foucault) as a perpetual pro-
cess of becoming (subjectivation). The
individuals knowing is now subjec-
tiveobjective, and truth building has
been transformed from objective and
monoperspectival to multiperspectival.
This individual operates not in a dead
space of objects, but in a network of
flows. Space is dynamic, perpetuallyco-created by the actions of individuals
and in P2P processes, where the digital
noosphere is an extraordinary medium
for generating signals emanating from
this dynamic space. The individuals in
peer groups, which are thus not tran-
scendent collective individuals, are in a
constant adaptive behavior. Thus, P2P
is global from the start; individualism
is incorporated into its practice. It is
an expression not of globalization, the
worldwide system of domination, but of
globality, the growing interconnected-
ness of human relationships.
P2P is to be regarded as a new form
of social exchange, creating its equiva-
lent form of subjectivation and reflect-
ing the new forms of subjectivation.
P2P, interpreted here as a positive and
normative ethos that is implicit in the
logic of its practice, though it rejects
the ideology of individualism, does not
endanger the achievements of the mod-
ern individual in terms of the desire
and achievement of personal autonomy
or authenticity. It is no transcendent
power that demands sacrifice of self;
it is fully immanent. Participants are
not giving up anything, and unlike in
contractual vision, which is fictitiousin any case, participation is entirely
voluntary. Thus, it reflects an expan-
sion of ethics: the desire to create,
share, and produce something useful.
The individual who joins a P2P project
puts his being, unadulterated, in the
service of the construction of a com-
mon resource. Concern for the narrow
group, intersubjective relations, and
the whole social field surrounding it
are implicit.
How does a successful P2P project
operate, in terms of reconciling the indi-
vidual and the collective? Imagine a
successful meeting of minds: individual
ideas are confronted and changed in the
process through free association borne
of the encounter with other intelligenc-
es. Thus, eventually a common idea
emerges that has integrated the differ-
ences, not subsumed them. Participants
do not feel they have made concessions
or compromises, but they feel that the
new common integration is based on
their ideas. There has been no minor-
ity that has succumbed to the majority.
There has been no representation or loss
of difference.
An important philosophical change
has been the abandonment of the unify-
ing universalism of the Enlightenment.
Universality was to be attained by striv-
ing for unity and by the transcendence
of representation of political power.
This unity meant sacrifice of differ-
ence. Today, the new epistemologicaland ontological requirement that P2P
reflects is not abstract universalism, but
the concrete universality of a commons
that has not sacrificed difference. This is
the truth expressed by the new concept
of multitude, developed by Toni Negri.5
P2P is predicated not on representation
and unity, but on the full expression of
difference.
These insights and developments are
being expressed by contemporary spiri-
tual practitioners as well. What kind of
changes can be expected in the expres-
sion of spirituality?
Today, t he n ew epi stemologi cal
and ontological requirement
that P2P ref lects is not abstract
universalism, but the concrete
universali ty of a commons that
has not sacr i f iced di f ference.
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
10/14
SPRING2007 43
Case studies
Commons-oriented approaches
Heron specifically integrates the P2P
concept of the commons in his spiritual
worldview through his recognition of
and call for a global integral-spiritual
commons.
By integral spirituality I mean, at thevery least, a spirituality that is manifest infull embodiment, in relationship and inter-connectedness, in mutuality and sharing,in autonomous creativity, and in full accessto multidimensional meanings.
By global commons I mean a world-wide space to which anyone on the plan-et has rights of access, and which isa worldwide forum for communicationbetween everyone who claims their rightsof access. The cyberspace of the internetis such a global commons.
Cyberspace itself is fully embodied in thedynamic relation between humans and
the planetary network of computers; it isa space generated by interconnectedness;it is premised on the full and unfetteredmutuality of sharing information; it isan unlimited space for the expression ofautonomous creativity; and its providesaccess for all to a vast range of multidi-mensional meanings.
It is in this sense that I call the internet,i.e. cyberspace, a global integral-spiritualcommons. It has the properties and poten-tial of an integral-spiritual space. The factthat such a space can be used for vulgaror corrupt purposes does not, in my view,detract from its inherent integral-spiritualstatus, in the same way that the spiritual
status of free will is not in any way under-mined by the abuse of free will. It is pre-cisely that continuity of status, whateverwe do with the gift, that sooner or latercalls us to a liberating and creative useof the gift.6
Working the We field through peer
circles
Mushin J. Shilling is a spiritu-
al teacher who has expressed these
insights spiritually by changing his
behavior from teacher to spiritual facil-
itator and mentor. He expresses the
discovery of the We as part of the story
of his conversion to a leader concerned
with helping others achieve autonomy
within cooperation:
So it is very beautiful and makes deepsense that obviously this space is notempty at all; it is flowing over with theWe that embraces all. And as I said, theWe is making itself felt, understood, intu-ited all over this globe and is manifesting
in many different waysas people want-ing to cooperate, to collaborate, to be incommunity and communion, seeing thatthe time of heroes (central suns) is defi-nitely over, the time for the saviors andlone leaders that could set things rightagain. The world and its problems havebecome so complex that we can onlyhope to find adequate answers in circles
of very different people where we canmeet eye to eye and heart to heartin asort of collective leadership maybe. Andthis is underfoot already on a worldwidescale. The place here would not suffice tomention all the initiatives that are goingon all over the world. Yet, this is oneaspect of We manifesting.
Another aspect is the sense of spiritual orsoul families or clans finding each otheragain across countries and continents.It is as if we have chosen ages ago tocome together in this critical time on theplanet to be midwives to what is wantingto emerge. Whatever may be the casewe do recognize each other and there is
an immediate connection beyond words,even beyond understanding; all we do isaccept it.
A third aspect manifests through what hasbeen called the Circle Being, manifestingas a higher order of being together withan incredible coherence that draws in theindividuals participating. This certainly isWe, being highly coherent.7
The development of intersubjective
facilitation
As the consciousness of relationality
and the collective We field has gained
currency, tools and practices have
been developed that allow individuals
to grow within it. Some of the better
known are Bohmian Dialogue, Herons
co-operative inquiry, and Steven Wirths
Contemplative Dialogue. These stand in
contrast with individual spiritual growth
approaches that mostly ignored the rela-
tional and collective fields.
A description of Bohmian Dialogue
by Alderman illustrates one of this
new breed of group-based facilitation
techniques:
In Bohmian dialogue, one strives to be
mindful of the movement of thought inseveral dimensions simultaneously: as thesubjective thoughts and felts that arise atany given moment; as the objective mani-festation of sensations and contractions inthe body; as the gestures and body lan-guage of members in the group; as the par-ticular content of the discussion at hand; asthe patterns of interaction and conflict thatemerge over time (not only in one session,but over multiple sessions); as the conven-
tions and rules which may inhibit the flowof dialogue; and so on. In the beginning,this is a rather difficult practice. But oneapproaches it simply: starting from a posi-tion of open listening and letting dialogueunfold in the space of awareness that thegroup establishes. Certain deeply heldbeliefs, presuppositions, unwritten rules,fears and insecurities, and so on, will grad-
ually make themselves manifest throughthis process, as perceptions of individualsin the group fail to line up and variousconflicts emerge. These implicit beliefs,these forms of psychological and culturalconditioning, are not readily apparent inthe practice of solitary meditation; but inBohmian contemplative dialogue, particu-larly if it is sustained over a period of daysor weeks, these patterns will emerge overtime in the intersubjective field and can becognized and processed by the group as awhole (or privately by individuals after aparticular session has concluded).
Bohm contends (and I can confirm) thatsustained practice of this form of dia-
logue, particularly if certain ground rulesare followed, can lead not only to theemergence of insight for individuals inthe group, but to a sort of collective intel-ligence that manifests in between partici-pantsa creative flow of awareness andinspiration that can guide the group todeeper and deeper levels of understandingand communion. The unconscious con-ventions and habits of thought, the condi-tioning which usually drives our reactionsand our social negotiations, opens onto aliving field of responsive intelligenceinBohms terms, the birth of group intelli-gence out of the largely unconscious fieldof group think.8
Chaos religions on the Internet
Remi Sussan, the author of a book
on posthuman utopias (2005), is also
knowledgeable about the new forms
religion is taking in and through the
Internet. She writes,
During the last two decades has appeareda new trend of occultism that, in manyways reverse common characteristics ofthe traditional esoteric doctrines. Occult-ism emphasizes secrecy, the new occultistswill do everything in the open; occultismis based on hierarchical systems, grades;new occultists will laugh at hierarchy,
prefer disorder to order; occultism claimto be a wisdom coming from an distantpast, a theologia prisca; new occultistsdont hesitate to assume their modernity,and blur the frontier between religionand imagination by using images comingfrom the pop culture: Mr Spock, Buffythe Vampire Slayer, or even Bugs Bunny.
Known under the various names of chaosmagick, pop magic, postmodern magic,
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
11/14
4 4 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4
this current is in fact the deconstructionof traditional esoteric thought. It is alsoone of the first egalitarian, non-authori-tarian spiritual movements. The emphasisput on chaos in this movement tendsto prove that it is not only hierarchicalspirituality that is questioned, but reallythe very notion of order.9
One of the latest manifestations of thattrend is the Ultraculture movement, pro-
moted by Jason Louv of http://www
.disinfo.com.
[It is] a cultural movement based aroundthe mass interest in magic and the con-cordent need to apply it to improving ourthoroughly disturbed world.
Ultraculture specifically means two things:
1) It is the name of a social network-ing system. Specifically, the idea behindUltraculture is to apply the Indymediamodel to magic, and establish open city-based scenes based around mailing listsand web pages where people can link upwith people in their area interested inmagic, esotericism, consciousness evolu-tion, etc., discuss it in terms of how itapplies to both their own experiences andtheir communities, and then determinetheir level of activity and involvementwithin that growing network.
Ultraculture is NOT another magicalorder, group or hierarchy, nor is it justanother discussion forum; in this capacityit is only a social connecting system onboth a local and global scale. Occultismhas traditionally been the pursuit of theOutsider figure; Ultraculture then aimsto situate magic more firmly as an activity
of communities.
9
Open source religions
Open source religion is another form
of contemporary expression that consid-
ers spiritual knowledge to be the collec-
tive property of humanity, thus needing
to be available in open source form that
can be freely and co-creatively modified
and adopted by various individuals and
communities.
Open source religions attempt to employopen source methodologies in the cre-ation of religious belief systems. As
such, their systems of beliefs are createdthrough a continuous process of refine-ment and dialogue among the believ-ers themselves. In comparison to tradi-tional religionswhich are consideredauthoritarian, hierarchical, and changeresistantthey emphasize participation,self-determination, decentralization, andevolution. Followers see themselves aspart of a more generalized open sourcemovement, which does not limit itself to
software, but applies the same principlesto other organized, group efforts to createhuman artifacts.10
This Wikipedia article provides exam-
ples, including the unsuccessful attempt
by Douglass Rushkoff to create a pro-
cess for an Open Source Judaism.
Toward a contributory spiritualityThese examples show that the three
emerging paradigm shiftsopen and
free, participatory, and the commons
are felt through contemporary spiritual
practices. They suggest a new approach
to spirituality that I call contributory
spirituality. This approach considers
that each tradition is a set of injunctions
set from within a specific framework
and that can disclose different facets of
reality. This framework may be influ-
enced by a set of values (e.g., patriar-
chy, exclusive truth doctrines) that may
be rejected today, but it also contains
psychospiritual practices that disclose
truths about humanitys relationship with
the universe. Discovering spiritual truth,
then, requires at least a partial exposure
to these differential methods of truth
discovery within a comparative frame-
work, but it also requires intersubjective
feedback, so it is a quest that cannot be
undertaken alone, but with others on
the same path. Tradition is thereby not
rejected but critically experienced and
evaluated. The modern spiritual practi-
tioner can hold himself to a particulartradition but not feel confined by it. He
or she can create spiritual inquiry circles
that approach the different traditions
with an open mind and experience them
individually and collectively, in which
different individual experiences can be
exchanged. In this way, a new collec-
tive body of spiritual experiences is
created that is continuously co-created
by the inquiring spiritual communities
and individuals. The outcome of that
process will be a co-created reality that
is unpredictable and will create new,
as yet unpredictable spiritual formats.But one thing is certain: it will be an
open, participatory approach leading to
a commons of spiritual knowledge from
which all humanity can draw.
NOTES
1. This article is not the right context inwhich to explain such trends in detail. How-
ever, interested readers should see the Website of The Foundation for P2P Alternativesat http://www.p2pfoundation.net/The_Foundation_for_P2P_Alternatives.
2. Why the next Buddha will be a collec-tive, posted May 14, 2007, on Helen Titch-en Beeths personal Web site. http://yeshe.zaadz.com/blog/2007/5/why_the_next_buddha_will_be_a_collective (accessed Sep-
tember 11, 2007).3. Relational Spirituality, from TheFoundation for P2P Alternatives Web site.http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Spirituality (accessed June 22, 2007).
4. Nondual Community: The Flower-ing of Intersubjectivity (Part 1), posted May28, 2007, on Bruce Aldermans personalWeb site. http://brucealderman.zaadz.com/blog/2007/5/nondual_community_the_flowering_of_intersubjectivity_part_1 (accessedJune 25, 2007).
5. Pour une definition ontologique dela multitude [For an ontological definitionof the multitude], from Multitudes. http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Pour-une-definition-ontologique-de.html (accessed October
24, 2007).6. Global Integral-Spiri tual Com-
mons, from The Foundation for P2P Alter-natives Web site. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Global_Integral-Spiritual_Commons(accessed June 22, 2007).
7. We are the next Buddha, postedMay 15, 2007, on Mushin J. Shillings per-sonal Web site. http://www.mushin.eu/en/blog/2007/05/15/we-are-the-next-buddha/(accessed June 22, 2007).
8. Steps Towards Integral Deep Dia-logue, Part 2, posted May 20, 2007, onBruce Aldermans personal Web site. http://brucealderman.zaadz.com/blog/2007/5/steps_towards_integral_deep_dialogue_
part_2 (accessed October 24, 2007).9. P2P Occultism, from The Founda-
tion for P2P Alternatives Web site. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Occultism(accessed June 22, 2007).
10. Open source religion, from Wiki-pedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion (accessed June 22, 2007).
REFERENCES
De Quincey, C. 2002. Radical nature: Rediscovering the soul of matter.Montpelier, VT: Invisible Cities Press.
. 2005. Radical knowing:
Understanding consciousness throughrelationship. Bethel, ME: Park StreetPress.
Edelman, R. 2007, January 27. The Me2revolution . http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2006/01/index.html (accessed October 22, 2007).
Ferrer, J. N. 2001.Revisioning transpersonaltheory: A participatory vision of humanspirituality. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
12/14
SPRING2007 45
Ferrer, J. N., R. V. Albareda, and M. T.Romero. 2004. Embodied participationin the mystery: Implications for theindividual, interpersonal relationships,and society. ReVision 27 (1): 1017.
Ferrer, J. N., M. T. Romero, and R. V. Albareda.2005. Integral transformative education:A participatory proposal. Journal ofTransformative Education 10 (3): 30630.
Fiske, A. P. 1991. Structures of social life:The four elementary forms of humanrelations. New York: Free Press.
Groen, I., and J. Boschma. 2006. GeneratieEinstein [Generation Einstein]. Rotterdam,Netherlands: Pearson Education.
Kripal, J. J. 2005. In the spirit of Hermes:Reflections on the work of Jorge N. Ferrer.Tikkun 18: http://www.tikkun.org.
Ray, P. H., and S. R. Anderson. 2001. Thecultural creatives: How 50 million peopleare changing the world. New York: ThreeRivers Press.
Sussan, R. 2005.Les utopies posthumaines:Contre-culture, cyberculture, culture du
chaos[Posthuman utopias: Counterculture,cyberculture, chaos culture]. Paris:Omniscience.
Tulku, T. 1978. Time, space, and knowledge: A new vision of reality. Berkeley, CA:Dharma Publications.
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
13/14
-
8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be
14/14