I think that peer-to-peer spirituality is a very good approach, but for (to use wilber's terminology) "translative" rather than "transformative" spirituality.

Hi Sneha,

I don't believe it is as clear cut as that, but I'm unsure if our disagreement about this is due to misunderstanding the terms of what we are talking about, or a sincere disagreement.

For example, a three part practice of meditation, instruction in the "right view", and heart practice, is definitely a tranformational practice.

And the above practice - the above injunction - can be done via the peer to peer method.

Would you not agree?

However, there is the objection, and the hidden danger of a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing".

One of the functions of the guru, in the traditional view is the GURU is of absolute necessity, as this connects you with the timeless truths, as bound up in tradition. Thus the perennial philosophy, would conflict, in this case, with peer to peer spirituality.

Is this the direction you were meaning your comment? I would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Hi eBuddha,

I am very much for the dissemination of info on spiritual practices to a wider audience,
And yes i agree to, "a three part practice of meditation, instruction in the "right view", and heart practice, is definitely a transformational practice".

The point i was making was not about information on methods etc.. but about the approaches - self effort alone, collaborative and guru-oriented.

I think the major difference between transformatory and translatory changes is that authentic transformation involves transgressing the ego boundaries, whereas translatory changes can be brought about from within the confines of the ego-self.

In case of translatory changes one can either go for a collaborative approach or take the help of a coach etc.. (I would also include the role of a coach in collaborative approach). And i think in future collaborative is going to be the norm rather than the exception for translatory changes.

The two most important factors involved in a spiritual practice are "View" and "experience". Now the question arises which is more primary "View" or "experience", i.e. one should first develop the View and then go for experience or vice-versa? In my opinion boot-strapping between "View" and "Experience" is the best option. It is here i think a Guru becomes important, in passing on the right experience at the right time and helping in moulding the view. If an individual can get a Guru to whom he/ she can really open upto that i think is the "fastest path" (not the only path) for spiritual transformation. Anyway one issue is finding such a Guru.

Still whether one has such a Guru or not, collaboration is a great aid.
One major area where collaboration is very useful is in refining the "View/ Philosophy" by sharing information and engaging in debates. In ancient India for example debate was used very widely. Many times our "View" is mostly composed of "assumptions", which when genuinely debated can fall apart easily. In my opinion there has to be a "valid inferential cognition" of the View as Prasangikas say.

Another mode of collaboration i have heard among indian wandering yogis is a sort of "barter system", or exchange of techniques.

Now most spiritual traditions specify atleast a theoretical "End". A group of people can also set out on a journey without any particular "End" in view, mutually helping each other. Instead of treading through already laid out paths, they can co-create new paths and do in short an "adventure of consciousness". Maybe its slow and hazardous, but that's part of the fun in adventure. I think the most interesting approach of collaboration in spiritual transformation is taking it as such an adventure.