The most engaging question on my mind has nothing to do with American politics at all.
It is as follows: Much Buddhist literature is about hierarchical steps to enlightenment. To what degree are these steps referring to specific assertions in a chain of argument - which would be, as it were, steps to enlightenment - and to what degree do they instead reflect the institutional hierarchy within a monastic community?
Like so much in Buddhism, there are a lot of cheeky elliptical ways to restate this question using jargon:
Am I gradually appreciating the truth of subitism?
Is it possible to become enlightened without realizing it? Is it possible to think oneself enlightened and not be? (Certainly yes, but how common is it?)
What’s the test that separates a bodhisatta - a future Buddha who isn’t yet enlightened - from an enlightened one? Or is there test separating a bodhisatta from someone who hasn’t got a chance of enlightenment? Is it just “Are you a monk”?
What IS going on with the institutional hierarchies of monasticism anyway?
If you see me staring into space I’m probably thinking about this stuff.