![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
geekchickBuddhist words such as compassion and emptiness don't mean much until we start cultivating our innate ability simply to be there with pain with an open heart and the willingness not to instantly try to get ground under our feet. For instance, if what we're feeling is rage, we usually assume that there are only two ways to relate to it. One is to blame others. Lay it all on somebody else; drive all blames into everyone else. The other alternative is to feel guilty about our rage and blame ourselves.
Blame is a way in which we solidify ourselves. Not only do we point the finger when something is "wrong," but we also want to make things "right." In any relationship that we stick with, be it marriage or parenthood, employment, a spiritual community, or whatever, we may also find that we want to make it "righter" than it is, because we're a little nervous. Maybe it isn't exactly living up to our standards, so we justify it and justify it and try to make it extremely right. We tell everybody that our husband or wife or child or teacher or support group is doing some sort of peculiar antisocial thing for good spiritual reasons. Or we come up with some dogmatic belief and hold on to it with a vengeance, again to solidify our ground. We have some sense that we have to make things right according to our standards. If we just can't stick with a situation any longer, then it goes over the edge and we make it wrong because we think that's our only alternative. Something's right or something's wrong.
We start with ourselves. We make ourselves right or we make ourselves wrong, every day, every week, every month and year of our lives. We feel that we have to be right so that we can feel good. We don't want to be wrong because then we'll feel bad. But we could be more compassionate toward all these parts of ourselves. When we feel right, we can look at that. Feeling right can feel good; we can be completely sure of how right we are and have a lot of people agreeing with us about how right we are. But suppose someone does not agree with us? Then what happens? Do we find ourselves getting angry and aggressive? If we look into the very moment of anger or aggression, we might see that this is what wars are made of. This is what race riots are made of: feeling that we have to be right, being thrown off and righteously indignant when someone disagrees with us. On the other hand, when we find ourselves feeling wrong, convinced that we're wrong, getting solid about being wrong, we could also look at that. The whole right and wrong business closes us down and makes our world smaller. Wanting situations and relationships to be solid, permanent, and graspable obscures the pith of the matter, which is that things are fundamentally groundless.
Instead of making others right or wrong, or bottling up right and wrong in ourselves, there's a middle way, a very powerful middle way. We could see it as sitting on the razor's edge, not falling off to the right or the left. This middle way involves not hanging on to our version so tightly. It involves keeping our hearts and minds open long enough to entertain the idea that when we make things wrong, we do it out of a desire to obtain some kind of ground or security. Equally, when we make things right, we are still trying to obtain some kind of ground or security. Could our minds and our hearts be big enough just to hang out in that space where we're not entirely certain about who's right and who's wrong? Could we have no agenda when we walk into a room with another person, not know what to say, not make that person wrong or right? Could we see, hear, feel other people as they really are? It is powerful to practice this way, because we'll find ourselves continually rushing around to try to feel secure again -- to make ourselves or them either right or wrong. But true communication can happen only in that open space.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 06:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 06:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 07:10 am (UTC)Great print, great song. I think it might be a bit too grey outside to listen to Leonard Cohen today though. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 07:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 05:06 pm (UTC)Not all values need to be imposed
Date: 2004-07-12 11:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 04:36 pm (UTC)I find that removing that link is a very relieving process. I think the natural inclination to dispute the validity of the space of knowing in the moment that one is wrong and still able to feel good about it is strong; as is the tendency to marginalize being wrong by feeling good about it as being in self denial (lying to one-self to believe that one is actually right). (The other permutations seem easy to identify and find internalized examples, so I'll let them go without discussion.)
But sometimes it all comes down to layers of abstraction. In a Management Studies course, I saw a study indicating that "in Business", managers were only right about 1/3 of the time (along with the the analogy that put them slightly above Major League Baseball batting stats.) and that when in doubt, picking any option and moving forward wasn't particularly less likely to hit on the right solution, and at least accelerated the discovery process if it was indeed the wrong choice. At that point, is it the business direction decision that was wrong but okay to feel good about, or was it the decision to press on rather than stagnate without benefit that was right and best to feel good about?
And then... Mnnnn. Tasty metaphysics.