In most cases, those who have already entered a school or have a teacher tend to have a significant influence, and this is effective in terms of guidance. However, there are a certain number of spiritual organizations where people repeatedly ask, "Did you take the ⚪︎⚪︎? What year?" and make it clear that they are conscious of the hierarchy based on the year of enrollment, and try to make others follow that hierarchy.

Such people usually have an "expanded spiritual ego," a sense of pride in being a superior being, which is almost always an illusion. Because they are spiritual beginners, they may have taken a course and graduated, and they feel as if they are superior in spirituality.

When one truly progresses in spirituality, they often go through a stage where they feel that almost everyone around them is enlightened. After that, they become quite accurate in assessing the growth stage of those around them.

0. A state of spiritual ignorance (avidya, ignorance).
1. A feeling of having grown, an expansion of the spiritual ego (self).
2. A feeling that everyone around is enlightened.
3. Knowing existence through non-existence, being able to grasp the (relatively) accurate (rough) growth stage of the people around.

Among these, there are many people in the spiritual industry who are at stage 1 and feel as if they have grown. If such people are in an organization, they often mistakenly believe that they are hierarchically superior because they have taken seminars or obtained qualifications, and they may use new entrants condescendingly, give orders, scold, or look down on them.

This is quite inevitable to some extent, and it is difficult to completely avoid. Therefore, spiritual aptitude is important. If someone does not originally have a tyrannical personality, they will not become tyrannical even if they take seminars or obtain qualifications. Once the spiritual ego has expanded and self-esteem has increased, I think it might be better for them to leave that spiritual organization.

There are various reasons for this, such as learning about society, or, in terms of yoga, "karma yoga." In short, if you get stuck in stage 1 and cannot get out, it is better to change your environment. Stage 1 is only at the beginner level, whether you take a seminar or obtain a qualification. Even if you acquire knowledge and learn various things about spirituality, you will not be able to move on to the next stage if your ego is expanding.

It seems that for people in such a stagnant state to move on to the next stage, it almost always requires leaving the group, experiencing a major shock, or some other trigger. However, if one is humble and doesn't get attached, they can move on to the next stage without any problems. Surprisingly, many people seem unable to move beyond stage 1.

Once a hierarchy is established, a command system is created, and a relationship of giving and following instructions emerges, which hinders spiritual growth. This is also a negative aspect.

There are often "old ladies" in companies who have a misguided sense of authority, who yell at others based on the hierarchy, or belittle others. This is happening in what is supposed to be a spiritual group, and the basics are not being followed.

In such cases, there is often someone who temporarily emerges to provide a strong shock, shaking things up intensely to exhaust people and force them to leave the spiritual group. This is not necessarily a sad thing, because to get out of the stagnant state of stage 1, it is necessary to return to normal society and rebuild relationships from a neutral standpoint. People who have been wielding power as "old ladies" within the spiritual group will initially struggle in normal society, but even so, many people choose this path to overcome their ego.

In reality, there are quite a few people who, even though they are expanding their ego in a spiritual group and yelling at or commanding others, believe they are spiritually superior. Of course, this is a delusion, but they are so blind that they don't realize their own ego.

One of the reasons why spiritual groups are disliked is this. While general participants who have not obtained qualifications such as membership, initiation, or instructor are treated as "customers," the longer someone has been with the group, the less they are treated as customers, and gradually, strong words of command or guidance (which is essentially abuse) are used. Of course, this varies depending on the group, but even in seemingly peaceful groups, there are often people like this, and it is quite difficult to avoid them.

In reality, everyone is relatively straightforward when moving from stage 0 to stage 1, and there is not much harm from people at that introductory stage. On the other hand, after gaining some experience, having spiritual experiences, and acquiring some knowledge, spiritual ego can expand in stage 1, leading to stagnation. Some people remain in this state for generations and cannot move on to the next stage. This is a fairly common situation.

In such a situation, I think the solutions are as follows:

A. Enter the group, and once you reach stage 1, temporarily leave the group. Experience general society, and after about ten years, start learning spirituality from the beginning again.
B. Join a group that is careful not to fall into such traps. Join a group where you can properly learn these stages.
C. Don't enter at all, and remain a general participant. (For example, don't receive Catholic baptism. Don't receive rituals such as initiation.)

In any of these cases, it seems difficult to grow. Also, it seems that there is a high probability that if you enter normally, you will end up stuck in stage 1. Even if you are a sincere person at first, if you are treated as a teacher and follow the hierarchy, your spiritual ego will gradually expand, and it will be difficult to escape from that.

If you remain a general participant, you will usually be encouraged to enter the group, and there will be various reasons given, such as "there are things that cannot be taught unless you enter." It is true that there are things you can learn if you enter, but once you enter, you are incorporated into the hierarchy.

In terms of spirituality, people are not supposed to be in a hierarchy, but for some reason, when you join a group, you are almost forcibly incorporated into a hierarchy. In some groups, those who do not enter are considered customers, but some people do not make that distinction, and there are quite a few people who consider general participants or students to be at the bottom. Even if you don't enter, you can't escape the hierarchy either. However, even so, remaining a general participant is better than entering and being firmly incorporated into the hierarchy.

This kind of spiritual freedom is especially important for beginners. If you are incorporated into a hierarchy, your growth will be hindered. This kind of hierarchy is very earthly, and in principle, there is no hierarchy in spirituality. Even if there is, it is completely different from the order of initiation. In any case, a hierarchy determined by the order of initiation is wrong. While there is a teacher-student relationship in terms of the process of learning, spiritual level has nothing to do with initiation. However, the influence of predecessors is common not only in spiritual groups, but also in other areas.

Therefore, in the case of organizations with such problems, it is best to avoid getting too involved, and generally, it is better to be alone. It is a good idea to participate as a student, using the "place" only when necessary. It is better to pretend that you know nothing, and basically, just listen to the teacher.

▪️Trap of Self-Justification in Stage 1:

(In conditional situations and environments, even temporarily) When one is in a state where they are not economically constrained, their ego can expand, leading them into the trap of self-justification. In general society, this would result in losing a job or having one's evaluation lowered, and receiving appropriate consequences. However, in spiritual organizations, simply being among the first to join can lead to self-justification of one's status. Furthermore, if one is economically supported by other means, such as being a housewife, the ego can expand without immediately receiving consequences, and self-justification is tolerated. As a result, even though one is still a beginner in spirituality, they may feel as if they are important, and on the other hand, as their knowledge increases, they become more arrogant, more prone to anger, and yet they are harsh towards others, with a low threshold for anger towards others (self-proclaimed) spiritual (advanced) individuals are created.

In reality, many spiritual organizations have people who are not economically constrained, but are involved for reasons other than economics. For example, the feeling of wanting to be "recognized" or the desire to find a "place" can be transformed into involvement with spiritual organizations. Some people are involved with the relatively simple feeling that they will be recognized or given a place by doing volunteer work. On the other hand, there are many cases where people's egos expand, and they are satisfied with the "manipulation" of organizing volunteers, or they are squatting as "elders" in order to have their delusion of being a spiritual advanced person recognized by others.

For men, they usually have jobs in general society, so such fantasies are often shattered, and they don't make as many mistakes. However, for women, they often rely on their husbands financially, or they are pampered when they are young, so their self-esteem tends to expand, and more and more people who are treated as "spiritual advanced" in middle age and quickly become angry if they are not treated as such, are being produced. This seems to be a structural problem.

As spiritual organizations take the form of NPOs or religious corporations, the barriers to entry are low, and anyone who wants to join can be accepted, which means that even people who are not well-prepared can join. As a result, a situation can easily arise where spiritual beginners have a significant influence simply because they were among the first to join.

In the past, becoming a disciple of a spiritual teacher required the teacher's permission, and disciples who were not well-prepared were not accepted. The structure itself of NPOs and religious organizations is what causes these kinds of problems.

However, if there is a spiritually superior guru (teacher) at the center, the problem may not be so significant.

These types of organizations, due to their nature as NPOs or religious corporations, have a relatively low break-even point in terms of management, so they are difficult to eliminate and tend to survive for a long period of time. As a result, people who are mistaken may have limited opportunities to "learn" to correct their own mistakes, and they may eventually learn by fighting and getting tired of it, or by the organization itself becoming unsustainable and dissolving.

In either case, in the first round of spiritual practice, people often encounter these kinds of problems. It might be a good idea to take a break from spiritual organizations, cool down, and start again in the second round.

▪️The importance of intelligence:

Even in such cases, "intelligence" is important. In many cases, the people who are most trapped in the "trap of ego expansion" are not very intelligent. If you are intelligent, you will notice something is wrong. For example, in a specific case that actually happened, someone who did not understand the difference between "mission" and "vision" said, "I am working hard on daily tasks (routine, one-time tasks), and the current situation is almost 100% of that, so we should increase the stock and aim for revenue stabilization." However, a high-ranking lady misunderstood and said, "The purpose is to create a comfortable environment, so the topic is off," without realizing that she was the one who did not understand, and made a nonsensical statement that everyone else did not understand. As a result, the upper-level members of the hierarchy said, "Well, as long as the monthly expenses are covered, that's fine," focusing on a short-term perspective, and even long-term perspectives were rejected. Furthermore, the common phrase often heard in many NPOs, "If you don't like it, you do it yourself," also came out.

This statement seems to be the most accurate at first glance, but this is essentially about not dealing with people who say things like "You should just do it yourself." I try to keep my distance from people who say things like that.

▪️NPO "Al-Al" says, "You should catch the fish for them."

The question of whether to "catch the fish for them" or "teach them how to catch fish" is a common issue, but NPO "Al-Al" is where you are teaching them how to catch fish, but then you are criticized and looked down upon by people in the upper hierarchy (like "madams") who say, "You should just catch the fish for them." I was involved with an NPO for about 5 years when I was young, so I often encountered this kind of "NPO Al-Al," and I've also encountered similar things in spiritual organizations, which is why I don't want to be involved with NPOs, even if they are spiritual.

If you're going to catch the fish for them, there's no need to do it as an activity for an NPO. There's no reason for you to be told anything by noisy people in the upper hierarchy. You should just do it yourself. If you do that, it's natural that the NPO receives no income. It's a ridiculous idea to give an NPO income when you're doing something completely different to help them. Even if you start like that, you usually realize something is wrong and quit quickly.

There are people everywhere who, in a blatant and seemingly legitimate way, say things like, "In an NPO, if you make a suggestion, you're the one who has to do it." It's probably a common sense in NPOs, at least in Tokyo.

Some people who were initially asked to do things like that, but felt that it was strange that the benefits were going to the NPO despite being completely outsourced, end up becoming independent. However, I have seen people in the upper hierarchy who looked at those who became independent and started their own businesses with disdain, and misunderstood things like, "That person doesn't contribute anything back to the NPO (because they should give back since they received the idea)." But the ones who are misunderstanding are the people in the upper hierarchy. There is no such thing as a story where you can receive benefits from being completely outsourced. Of course, the NPO environment may have been useful for learning. But do they think that if you have an idea, you can easily start a business? There are many obstacles to overcome before a business succeeds. They are incredibly naive.

It seems that the lack of growth in NPOs is partly due to structural issues. For example, even when someone comes to teach an NPO "how to fish," some NPOs immediately dismiss them with a phrase like, "Then you should do it yourself." These NPOs need to learn more about society.

Furthermore, many NPOs and NGOs harbor the misconception that "large corporations are bad, and small companies are good." Especially when it comes to industrial products, it's often more cost-effective and reliable to work with larger companies, as they offer better quality and stability. However, some NPOs tend to choose smaller, less established companies simply because they are "large corporations" like Muji or Uniqlo. While some of these smaller companies may have issues like those related to Xinjiang, smaller companies often have their own problems, such as hidden costs, poor quality, or selling products that were rejected by quality control at larger companies. Many smaller companies engage in unscrupulous practices to maximize profits, and it's rare to find a truly ethical one. I have pointed this out in the past, but I was immediately berated by a senior member of the organization, who was quick to anger and shouted, "I've been doing this! Shut up!" This was a spiritual organization, not a typical NPO, and the senior member's outburst was unwarranted. It's common for people in NPOs and spiritual organizations to have short fuses and react aggressively. They are often naive and rude.

I regret that I didn't recognize early on that this person was prone to anger and should have distanced myself. I should have stopped engaging and simply remained silent, but I made the mistake of speaking out. This is a lesson learned: I failed to adhere to the principle of "don't associate with unethical people," and I received the consequences.

In another example, I proposed establishing a publishing company for the NPO, obtaining an ISBN, and publishing books to stabilize the organization's finances in the long term. However, a senior member of the organization (the same person who had previously erupted in anger) completely misunderstood the proposal and said, "We've already been selling books. Someone else is already publishing them." I corrected her by saying, "Selling someone else's books is pointless." This comment angered her, and she glared at me and said the familiar phrase, "Then you should do it yourself." If the NPO were to rely on a traditional publisher, they would receive only a small portion of the profits as royalties. However, by obtaining their own ISBN and distributing the books themselves, the NPO could retain most of the profits. This senior member, who didn't understand these basic principles, simply said, "You should do it yourself." If I were to establish a publishing company, the profits would naturally remain within the company, and it would be absurd to donate those profits to the NPO. The NPO needs to take the initiative to stabilize its finances, but instead, they are dismissed with the phrase, "You should do it yourself." Even if I were to volunteer my time to do this, few people would be willing to work full-time without pay, and most would quickly realize that the situation was unsustainable and leave. The NPO could either hire staff or establish a for-profit corporation, which would then provide funding to the NPO as dividends or rent. However, many people involved in NPOs are resistant to even hearing the word "corporation" and react hysterically or simply fail to understand the concept.

In reality, many incorporated companies contribute more to society and people than most NPOs that claim to be "for the good of the world." Because you can't contribute to society without properly doing your own job, some people who participate in NPOs may be seeking to boost their self-esteem through NPO activities while obtaining economic support elsewhere. This creates a strange situation. People who are seeking to boost their self-esteem through NPOs are better off without economic activity, and the very fact that they are not engaged in economic activity can be a driving force that attracts people.

In this case, proposals to stabilize the organization's revenue are often rejected and not understood. This is because the primary motivation for many people who participate in NPOs is to "distance themselves from economic activity," and they are often based on the premise of having economic stability elsewhere. Therefore, it is natural that people will feel disgusted and reject company-like discussions about stabilizing the organization's finances.

In this example, those in the upper hierarchy, when told to do something, often respond with the phrase "You should do it," and are then dismissed. As a result, the upper hierarchy members justify themselves and boost their self-esteem, appearing dignified and impressive (and are sometimes treated with respect by strangers at events). However, the reality is that they are often people with a short fuse who are quick to anger. Despite this, they demand "obedience" from those around them, and if they find even the slightest unpleasant behavior, they bring up the slogan of a "comfortable space" and blame those around them for their own irritability. The spiritual teachings given by such people often deviate from the main point, and while they talk about "creating a society where no one is hurt," it is often revealed that the underlying premise is simply that they don't want to be hurt themselves. Such uninteresting people end up in the upper hierarchy of these spiritual organizations.

For some people who are deeply involved in NPOs, their motivation is to "distance themselves from money," and they find peace of mind by being "away from money." Therefore, even talking about financial statements and management policies can be seen as something bad. This is what happens when people who are ignorant of the world gather together. However, some of these people have money, so when NPOs run out of money, they are often covered by donations, which maintains a self-justifying (distorted) environment. If they truly run out of money, they may move to reduce fixed costs, but either way, there seems to be a strong emphasis on "not engaging in economic activity." For these people, a "space where no one is hurt" and a "comfortable space" also means a space where no economic activity takes place. Therefore, it is only natural that I, who proposed something related to the organization's finances, would be disliked.

(For some core members,) their original motivation is there. Therefore, it is natural that they were severely criticized and rejected for making unnecessary comments when they were not even asked, and it can be said that it is self-inflicted. It would have been better if they had not made any comments in the first place. This may seem like "If you're not going to do it yourself, it's better not to comment," but that is not the case. It means "Since the NPO is not seeking economic activities, it is better not to make unnecessary comments like trying to give them something they don't want." What I did was unnecessary.

▪️NPOs are hunting grounds for free labor.

At the same time, NPOs are becoming hunting grounds for free or cheap labor. There are a certain number of people who are trying to profit by taking advantage of the good intentions of people who volunteer. Therefore, it is natural that when you make a suggestion to people who are hunting in the hunting ground (people who are looking for people who will work for free), a certain number of people will say, "You should do it." Most people are swayed by the culture and say things like that, or for a simple reason that they don't want to increase their own workload. However, there are people with a clear purpose of participating as a hunting ground. Such people want volunteers to work for them, rather than wanting someone to "take action" for them (the person, the caller, or the person themselves). Therefore, when they are told to do something themselves, they will say the things mentioned above and refuse, while on the other hand, they will call on others to take action. There are a certain number of people who say good things like "for the public," but are trying to get people to work for their own benefit. The phrase "Let's take action!" is often heard in NPOs, and it can be said that it is a slogan used to manipulate others and make them work as labor. However, NPO organizations themselves would not openly say such things, and many people do not fully understand this and simply think, "Oh, well," and even if they imitate and say the same thing, the intention is not always that strong, so it is not so guilty if they are unaware. However, there are a certain number of people who participate with a clear purpose of being a hunting ground for labor. Therefore, the words "You should do it" can sometimes be a roundabout way of saying, "You should also use this NPO to your advantage and reap free labor to enjoy your own benefits." It's really disgusting. NPOs are being targeted as hunting grounds for free and good-willed labor, while outwardly saying good things. It is natural that people who gain social experience will understand this disgusting structure, become disillusioned that they were just being manipulated and used as labor, and leave the NPO.

For example, even with book sales, it is optimal for the NPO itself to publish, but there are people who, with a good-looking facade, flock to the NPO and want to publish it through their own company. This may increase the number of copies sold and bring some profit to the NPO, especially for large companies. However, for small companies, the number of copies sold is limited, and most of the profit goes to the company (publisher), so only a small amount of money goes to the NPO. In this way, there is an aspect where the NPO exists as a hunting ground for people to publish books through their own companies and enjoy the profits. Because it is literally a hunting ground, it is not easy for NPOs to make money. Ideally, the best thing for an NPO is for the NPO itself to become a publisher and publish many books, or to create a separate company that the NPO owns and publish through that company. If you publish books through a company owned by someone else, it will only be troublesome and you will hardly make any profit. Even if you propose these things to the NPO, they will not understand, and they do not have the funds or the personnel. Of course, this is because the NPO is a hunting ground for free labor, so there are not many people left. One of the main motivations for being involved in an NPO is "feeling good by getting away from economic activities," so there are many people who are quite detached from the world or who are being used as a source of labor, which makes it difficult to have a normal conversation. Moreover, people who use the NPO as a hunting ground tend to laugh or try to cover it up if they think their true purpose will be seen through, and most people are swayed by this, so they cannot truly understand. In these situations, intelligence is important. NPOs are often run by people who are naive, so they are easily deceived by people who put on a good face. The "smile of a con artist" that we talked about the other day can often be seen in NPOs.

A similar example is when a small printing company is asked to do the printing, they initially say all sorts of good things like "we can do it very cheaply," but when you place the order and see the finished product, it turns out to be a flimsy print job that looks like it was done by an amateur with a cheap inkjet printer, and everyone complains. When you question the same person, they casually say, "it costs more to do it properly," which is a dishonest practice that is quite common in small companies (especially at first), so you can't completely trust them. You are being tricked by their smooth talk. This is a common occurrence.

▪️Everything is learning.

No matter what, everything is an opportunity to learn. So, even if I point out things or do things for that spiritual group's NPO, it won't be beneficial for the people there. Taking away learning opportunities is not good. In that sense, my suggestions were unnecessary. Originally, I should have just left them alone.

Even if a spiritual group has financial difficulties, it's their own doing. However, if people work without pay, the break-even point is very low, so it's not easy to continue. Even if they continue operating by relying on donations, it's an interesting phenomenon to observe from the outside, as it's a situation where self-esteem expands, making people more irritable, with a constantly decreasing boiling point, while claiming to be a spiritual superior. This is a typical example of distorted spirituality, and it can serve as a real-world model. It seems that people in the upper echelons of the hierarchy are often not fully aware of this, so it's not entirely their fault. However, the pattern of exploiting and discarding the enthusiasm of newcomers who are sincere and good-hearted is common not only in this spiritual group but also in NPOs that claim to be involved in social movements and environmental activities. The troublesome part is that this often happens unintentionally. That's a structural problem. Therefore, to avoid becoming a target for having one's enthusiasm exploited, one should be careful not to join such organizations.

As you can see, when you get involved in the teacher hierarchy of a spiritual group, you end up having to deal with uninteresting people, which slows down your own growth. Therefore, basically, it's better to avoid organizations with a hierarchical structure or to limit your involvement to being a student or participant. Recently, a lot of information about spirituality is available, and ultimately, the core principles are something you need to grasp yourself through meditation, etc. Therefore, what you should seek from an organization is just the "environment," and the instruction from the teacher should be minimal. Recently, there are teachers who teach without a hierarchical structure, and I think it's okay to learn from them on a personal basis rather than as part of an organization.

Even if an organization has structural problems, the teachers at the lower levels are often good people, so it's okay to use it as a place from time to time. Such "places" are rare in modern times, and although the people running them may have various problems, the place itself is valuable. However, there is no need to be involved in the hierarchy.

Perhaps, in the past, spirituality was a personal relationship. It seems that it has somehow become an organization, a hierarchy, and has become distorted.

▪️It is also good to set barriers to entry.

I think this because, whatever the organization, there may be a need for a "screening" (exam) for entry. In the past, to become a disciple of a spiritual guru, there was often the need for the guru's permission. However, nowadays, almost any spiritual organization readily accepts anyone. In most cases, NPOs allow anyone to join, which can lead to many strange people joining. As a result, I sometimes heard stories about the takeover of NPOs when I was involved with an NPO about 5 years ago.

NPOs are originally divided into two categories:
- The operating side (with barriers to entry)
- Fans (no barriers to entry)
However, the distinction seems to be unclear.

Having an exam (interview) for joining an NPO is one option, but such things are generally uncommon and can cause confusion. Therefore, it seems better to establish a normal corporation or limited liability company if you want to impose restrictions on entry. If you are registered, it is unlikely that you will be taken over easily. In addition, it would be good to create an NPO like a fan club below it. However, at least there should be restrictions on those involved in the operation, and it should not be a place where anyone can enter, and it should not be measured by "years."

Spiritual organizations are originally divided into three categories:
- "A one-on-one relationship between a guru and a disciple (with barriers to entry)"
- "Operating organization (＝disciple＝with barriers to entry)"
- "Fans (no barriers to entry, volunteers)"
However, the distinction seems to be unclear.

Even without malicious intent, it is common for "stupid" people to become arrogant based on "years" and disrupt the organization.

In the first place, if it is a disciple in a one-on-one relationship with a guru, such problems are less likely to occur. If you become a disciple only with the "permission" of the guru, and then everyone cooperates for the operation, the progress of the training and the operation are separated, so it seems that there will be less problems.

The problem now is that (recent spiritual organizations) allow anyone to enter without permission (or even if there is permission, it is just a formality), and furthermore, if they accept anyone who asks, the period of affiliation with the organization and the progress in spirituality are mixed. The problem is that there is a tendency to treat people who have been with the organization for a long time as if they are superior in spirituality. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the relationship as a disciple from the treatment as an operation. It is natural for those who have been with the organization for a long time to know more about the operation, so veteran operators are fine, but that is not very related to the progress of training.

In the past, (in most cases), becoming a disciple of a guru was something that was requested personally and granted. Nowadays, knowledge is quite public, but the traditional methods probably had their meaning. Even now, the basic principles are likely the same, but nowadays, many places recruit disciples like a school. So, while anyone can apply, there is no need for an examination, but I believe that, originally, the permission of the guru is necessary.

In fact, there are many gurus who do not take on disciples. In the past, there were times when people would intrude upon the places of such gurus, help with chores, and receive teachings in their spare time. I think that, ideally, that kind of approach should be acceptable.

Taking a step further and including general schools, the following distinctions can be made:
・Normal school (students are customers. No barriers to entry)
・Operating organization (company or voluntary organization) (barriers to entry exist)
・Fan club (no barriers to entry)
・(Casual) discipleship of a guru (no barriers to entry) - modern style
・(Traditional) discipleship of a guru (barriers to entry exist) - old-fashioned style

These distinctions are often blurred, and in some organizations, there is a tendency to believe that "simply staying in a spiritual organization for a long time makes one an excellent person." I think that being caught up in this can slow down one's own spiritual growth.

It can be said that organizations that properly distinguish these and operate in an orderly manner are less likely to have problems (or so I think), but I have not yet encountered such a spiritual organization.