May the Healing Begin

…By not holding to fixed views, the pure hearted one

Having clarity of vision, being freed from all sense desires,

Is not born again into this world.

Karaniya Metta Sutta

Not holding on to fixed views has been more difficult than usual lately with the impending election. No matter where one turns, there is injustice, anger, hatred and ignorance. It’s so easy to fall into an “us versus them” mentality and objectify the other side. To wrap ourselves in a cloak of sensed justice and cover our own eyes to the humanity of those with an opposing view. We rally for the underdogs, yet turn our kindness away from those holding a view we disagree with.

It seems like the United States, and perhaps the world, has reached a heightened level of division. Many of us on the leftward side of politics thought that surely Biden would win by a landslide. And yet, as the polls began, the contenders were neck and neck. A sure win wasn’t so sure.

Which means that nearly half of the country felt that Donald Trump should continue to be president. Why?

I don’t really know, because I have failed to ask in any meaningful way. I believe many others have probably failed in this regard as well. If there is to be any healing to this country, both our leaders and our citizens, are going to have to start asking those questions of the “other side”.

I am by no means saying that these conversations should condone any acts of cruelty, hatred or injustice, but instead to seek out where we have failed in meeting the true needs of others.

I have a dear friend who I know is a Trump supporter, yet I’ve never really asked her why. Part of me fears that I wouldn’t be able to hear her answer without becoming emotionally activated, and getting into an argument. Yet this person is a friend, and I value our friendship above and beyond our respective views. Wouldn’t it be great if we could calmly compare our viewpoints and find our commonality?

I’ve been following Oren Jay Sofer, who incorporates mindfulness with Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication. He offers a process of having conversations with others that honors the humanity of both sides. In his book “Say What You Mean”, he describes a three-part process, which I am loosely paraphrasing here in my explanations:

1. Lead with Presence: Can we pause to be in touch with our emotions and how they feel in the body as we begin the conversation?
2. Come From Curiosity and Care: Can we put aside our views and truly listen for the needs of the other person as they share their perspective, with empathic acknowledgment of the shared experience of suffering with this other person?
3. Focus on what matters: Can we identify the needs behind their statements and views?

If you find this approach interesting, please click on the link above to learn more. I am by no means an expert on this type of communication. There have been multiple failures in my previous attempts in this style of communication, yet there have been successes as well, and my hope is that the more I practice this, the better I will become.

So I hope that in the future, I can let go of my fixed view enough to have a conversation with my friend. I hope we all can have a conversation with someone who doesn’t share our views.

There is a quote by W. L. Bateman, “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got”. Somehow we need to put our views down for just a moment to have these conversations, to form a bridge, or we will continue to be “born” into a world of division, hatred, and ignorance.

Thanks for reading, and as always, be well and peaceful.

Finding Balance

During my recent travels, for the most part I was removed from American politics. I could watch what was going on in both the American and local (wherever I was at the time) political arena as an outsider, which lent itself to equanimity.

I can’t say that I was that involved before I left, but I could certainly see a sense of self revolve around political events and my reaction to them: this leader was “bad”, this other was “good”. I liked some policies, others seemed misguided at best. That duality was somewhat encouraged by the crowds I was within. Not because anyone suggested doing this, but because we all shared the same opinions.

But finding myself in other countries, it was easier to remove myself from political views and opinions. Not that I didn’t have them, but their pull was not as strong. Events in the states were occurring halfway around the world, and without constant access to television, I heard less about them. Locally, not being a citizen, I had no influence over what happened, which granted a certain freedom. It’s easy to be equanimous when one isn’t directly involved (The Indian demonetization excepted).

I have to say that the equanimity was a relief. A freedom to put views and opinions at a distance and say, in the words of one of my teachers, “It’s like this”.

In the Buddha’s time, monastics were instructed to stay out of politics. The idea was that monasteries should be a place of refuge for those of any political party, and no one should feel like they wouldn’t be welcome. Also, there was a higher goal of maintaining equanimity and losing the sense of “this is mine, this is I, this is my self”.

And while I don’t fall under the requirements that monasteries do, I still would like to think that I could have positive exchanges with people of opposing views. That the practice of metta wouldn’t be limited to political party, and that all would feel welcome in my presence.

Even as a lay-person, equanimity is still a goal. So at first, when I returned, my goal was to stay out of the political world, holding on to that equanimity with all my might.

Yeah, that didn’t happen.

Thanks to a regular exposure to views and opinions from both sides, I found myself in a quandary. When faced with actions that can cause harm to a large group of people, is it fair to stand aside and do nothing? As a layperson, I have no precept or constraint to stay out of politics. So the question I’m facing is this: can one find a balance between standing up for what one believes to be right, yet maintain equanimity? Can one recognize and resist when harm is being done without holding to views and opinions?

I haven’t figured out the answer yet. I believe somewhere in watching the mind, and seeing what leads to suffering and what doesn’t is the key. It’s a work in progress. I suppose that’s why they call it a “practice”.