Rules and How to Use Them

 Reading about the early accounts of how bhikkhus (monastics) resolved disputes in the Buddhist sangha, I am lead to reflect on the dialectic relationship between different parts of a community. It's interesting to me to reflect that 'rules' don't just get written down in books and thus become the automatic standard. Even though the early monastics had scriptural authority of the Buddha's teachings and were often well versed and practiced in the principles of dhamma, they still had to meet from time to time in communal groupings to discuss and lay out specific problems, and how the scriptures can be applied to deal with the problem. At times, disputes between the monks would become quite contentious, because not all the monastics could agree on how to apply buddhadharma to the point where majority rule would have to be resorted to. At still other times, the method of 'covering over with grass' had to be used: that is, burying the problem so that the monastics could get on with their lives and stop fighting with each other.
   In a way, it doesn't surprise me that this would happen, because again, rules are defined hermeneutically, in discussion with different parts in a whole. The university is one example of a place where there are rules (such as how to complete a degree, what qualifies as a good research, etc.) but there are different stakeholders who relate to these rules in different ways. Those who have more power and experience in adjudicating the rules also have a responsibility to inform those coming into the institutions for the first time. But all the mutual parties are equally responsible for making the educational experience significant and meaningful. If I am on one side of the spectrum and am not aware of the experience of the others who might have less power or voice, then I will miss out on a rich opportunity to see the operating principles and ethics of an organization in a different light. I also miss out on the role of relationships in refining how we apply standards.
   Sometimes, I think the best analogy when it comes to conflict in groups is that of 'pieces in a puzzle'. In order for the puzzle to complete itself, the pieces need to be known for what they are and come together to make that whole picture. Without the sense of things coming together to make a whole, there is a tendency to prescribe rules, without knowing who is looking at the rule, from what angle, and what limitations one may have in knowing how to apply them with wisdom and sensitivity.