Concerning “Risks and Protocols”

I agree with Ewan that we should discuss this more and clarify parts of it before circulating. Also with his remarks on tools, and the need for a document-sharing platform. And with the idea of suggesting/agreeing on tools for decision-making.

As far as I know, the way new CG groups have been set up since the death of Gary, at least in theory, is that experienced CG members have agreed to “shepherd” an emerging group as facilitator until they are ready to run themselves. I don’t know how far autonomisation has worked in practice.
(In my group I have proposed, on several occassions, that we take turns to facilitate, but this suggestion has not been taken up. The group seems happy to continue with two “regulars” taking turns to facilitate - which is no hard task since we have a very habitual functioning. I would imagine an Elephant group would probably wish to function differently.)

Some notes:

We recognise risks for the practitioner

  • Handling hot coals/rage [– can we say “anger” here instead of, or as well as “rage”? Rage to me is a really out-of-control thing – but including it is probably useful to convey that there is a spectrum…]
  • Desolation/confusion [can we be more precise about what is meant here?]
  • Selfing/views, unwise expectations and grasping
  • Living amid the rage and views of others, etc etc.
  • [Do we have other things to add?]

We also recognise risks for the sangha: clashes of commitment or fracturing along lines of:
[can we add something like, “commitment, fracturing or feelings of belonging/legitimacy/acceptance along lines of: " ? Or is that a different issue, or included in “fracturing”?]

  • Engagement, different engagement and non-engagement or ‘quietness’.
  • Diversity of life conditions and states of relative privilege — retirement/wage-earning/subsisting/parenting/care-giving, etc. [are we talking about time and economic privilege here?]
  • Ethnic community, global North/South; reparative justice. [I’m missing something concerning the reason behind having reparative justice in here. Can someone explain?]
  • Etc.[What else? Shouldn’t we also include gender ?]

For these reasons we would seek a shared set of protocols for the group, regarding:

  1. Facilitation — in-group and rotating/non-participant?
  2. Speaking, in rotation
  3. Forms of response
  4. Online space — corporate (Zoom, Signal?) or other platform (Jitsi, BigBlueButton, laSuite meet, etc).
  5. Calendar — time of day (timezones), frequency
  6. Topics — a list of standing topics, selected from (randomly?) in each session? A programme (see above)? But also personal space: ‘Here is something I really feel up against just now’.
    [That last point could possibly-probably be included in a “go-around” at the start of each session. Perhaps it might be interesting for facilitators, or an agreed person – or everyone? – to take notes on points that come up during these sharing moments that might be worthy of discussion, at a specified time during that session or at a different point, if people wish to? Or to compile a list of shared or recurring themes that come up?]
  7. A Bodhi College community group, in the community group space and participating in its forum(s).

Ewan says: “For (3) [Forms of response], I’d be inclined to either use (a very abbreviated version of) Bohmian dialogue, as suggested in places on the BC forum, or preferably the approach of Insight Dialoge (see bottom of page — snappier than Bohm and arising in a Buddhist framework). "

Here (at long last!) are the guidelines and principles for CG groups right back in the beginning (2020) by (I am presuming) our late friend Gary Born along with Shannon. I don’t know who came up with the condensed version of Bohm but it’s pretty snappy.

Guidelines

  1. All participants are equally able to contribute;
  2. No interruptions (except if there is a time constraint);
  3. No criticism, or personal comments – although a response is ok if its relevant
  4. Pause before speaking – to provide a space for ideas to become embodied;

To facilitate this, the Facilitator

  1. May remind participants of the Guidelines
  2. Calls on participants to speak, if they wish to contribute

To put these guidelines in effect requires buy-in from all participants – from the whole Group. We can do this via Bohmian Dialogue. These are based on principles laid down by David Bohm, a theoretical physicist (b. 1917), associate of J. Krishnamurti and A. Einstein, and advisor to the Dalai Lama.

Principles of Bohmian Dialogue

  1. Suspending assumptions and judgement
  2. Not trying to convince others
  3. Opening to the whole experience – the whole is greater than the sum of the contributions
  4. Contributions aren’t driven by fear of censure or judgement, or by desire for “success”

The link for this page is here:
https://discourse.bodhi-college-community.org/t/guidelines-for-community-group-discussions-bohmian-dialogue/19

It is followed by two links on texts by Bohm, which are in effect quite a bit unsnappier.

I feel these guidelines have worked well at least for my CG group thus far, and would like to hang onto them for us if everyone agrees. I have no objections to also including the Insight Dialogue approach proposed by Ewan – I agree with these points, insofar as they are able to take root in my mind. They eventually do, after a few readings, and because, thanks to dharma practice, I can, with thought, relate them to personal experience. Otherwise, they are a good example to me of the kind of language I personally often find too abstract to actually get much of a hold on – but I find this interesting, and proof that different approaches are desirable so as to appeal to different types of mind.