Fallibility and the End of the Infallible Teacher
The problem isn’t that spiritual teachers are fallible.
The problem is that entire infrastructures have been built that depend on the illusion that they aren’t.
When authority is automatically transferred onto one human being, two things lock into place.
Students hand over their discernment, often without realising it. Their own clarity, intuition, and responsibility atrophy under the assumption that someone else sees more, knows more, is more. And even when a teacher genuinely has greater experience or understanding, this is still no justification for self-abandonment. What passes for devotion is often displacement — the outsourcing of one’s own authority.
At the same time, teachers become trapped in an impossible position. Maintaining the appearance of infallibility requires constant defence, image management, and subtle self-betrayal. Over time, this corrodes honesty and integrity and closes the system to correction.
Only two outcomes remain: collapse through exposure, or exhaustion from sustaining what is no longer real.
Once a system is organised around the maintenance of infallibility, it loses the capacity to self-correct without threatening the illusion that holds it together.
Both sides lose contact with something fundamental, and the culture built around them becomes distorted — propped up by projection, deference, and the pressure to keep the structure intact.
What is now breaking down is not a role, but an era.
Spiritual teaching is where this failure shows up earliest and most clearly.
Because when authority is claimed in the name of truth, awakening, or ultimate understanding, the costs of infallibility are impossible to hide.
What is breaking down now is not contained to spirituality. It is exposing a structural limit that applies wherever authority is centralised in one figure.
Across education, leadership, therapy, and organisational life, we are encountering the limits of the infallible-leader model. Not because leaders have failed, but because the complexity of the world now exceeds what any single individual can legitimately hold.
What tends to provoke resistance at this point is not the presence of insight, but what it destabilises. Every authority-based system rests on a load-bearing fiction: that intelligence must be housed somewhere — in a role, a person, a lineage, a centre. The structure itself is treated as the guarantor of truth.
There is an unspoken contract embedded in this arrangement. Insight may be permitted, even celebrated, so long as it does not undermine the architecture that authorises it.
This agreement is rarely enforced explicitly. It is enforced culturally — through belonging, credibility, access, legitimacy. You may have insight, but you must not destabilise the structure that grants it authority.
When this fiction is exposed, the reaction is often framed as disagreement or defensiveness. In reality, what is being threatened is not an idea, but the scaffolding that has organised meaning, power, and permission.
What is being challenged now is not a particular leader or orientation, but the assumption that intelligence itself requires a stabilising authority in order to exist at all. When that assumption collapses, the entire edifice built upon it becomes visibly provisional.
What is emerging in its place has already been named, from different angles, by different yet converging orientations: We-space, collective intelligence, relational fields, the Third Voice.
These are not metaphors for harmony or agreement. They describe a phase shift in how intelligence itself is understood, accessed, and expressed.
This intelligence is not centrally controlled or hierarchically owned. It is not organised in the traditional sense.
It arises between people — as a shared field of attention in which insight exceeds the sum of individual contributions.
In this configuration, authority no longer collapses upward into one figure, nor does it dissolve into flatness or consensus. It redistributes across a living field of participation.
Fallibility becomes the baseline rather than the exception — not as a moral stance, but as a functional necessity.
When no one is required to be infallible, the system regains its capacity to self-correct without collapse. Error can be named without threat. Insight can arise anywhere. Reality is no longer defended; it is met.
This does not eliminate hierarchy.
Differences in experience, capacity, and understanding remain real — and they matter.
Leadership continues to exist, but it no longer operates through domination or exclusion.
Those with greater experience lead from within the field, not above it. Their authority is contextual, responsive, and accountable to what is actually happening, not protected by role or image.
Participants, in turn, are not reduced to followers or believers. They remain in contact with their own perception while engaging something larger than themselves.
Discernment stays active.
Responsibility is not surrendered; it is shared.
What appears here is not a better hierarchy, but a different order of intelligence altogether.
Not group-think.
Not consensus.
Not a collective mind that replaces individual minds.
Rather, a shared environment in which perception sharpens, insight emerges relationally, and transformation occurs within and between people.
The field itself becomes the orienting force — making new seeing possible without being owned or directed by any one position.
This does not come without cost.
Collective intelligence does not tolerate the protections that individual authority depends on. It requires the surrender of image, the loosening of pre-conceptions, the relinquishment of the will to dominate, and the need to be seen as central, special, or right.
The field does not appear benignly. It emerges only under conditions of rigor — when individuals are willing to be stripped of the strategies that once secured status, certainty, and control.
When these conditions are met, what becomes possible is no longer merely personal or interpersonal. The shift that follows is not an interior achievement but a structural reorganisation of how intelligence operates between people.
This shift is not merely relational, spiritual, or therapeutic.
It is cultural.
A society organised around shared authority can respond to complexity without collapsing into control or chaos. It can hold uncertainty without manufacturing false certainty to manage fear.
This is the deeper significance of the end of the infallible teacher.
Not the loss of leadership — but the end of leadership that arrests collective intelligence at the level of the individual.
Not the disappearance of hierarchy — but its reorganisation within a shared field of participation and contribution.
Crucially, this is not a behaviour to be learned or a method to be applied.
While guidance may be needed to recognise and inhabit it, the capacity itself is already present. It is an inherent human intelligence — long constrained by hierarchical structures — now finding expression successfully in real-world contexts, sometimes deliberately, sometimes by accident, wherever people are working beyond the limits of individual perspectives.
This is a profound moment in how we come to know, act, and orient together:
into a different form of intelligence, coherence, and expression.
Please note: The new web address for the BETWEEN-Us Groups is: