selflesscentrism
The community of meditation students are 2 years into a dharma drama stemming from their leader's past transgressions being exposed. In short, he was #metoo'd and consequently knocked off from his throne. The irony is stark and cuts sharply through the community. It is being characterized as having caused a state of groundlessness throughout this community. As a casual observer, I wonder if there are any grounds for that?
0 Comments
Imagine a sporting event or long movie that never ends. All of the athletes and performers continue playing and performing indefinitely. The audience has no idea when the game will end or which team will win. The audience doesn’t know if the film will have a happy or sad ending. If some of the movie’s scenes might be shocking or scary maybe the other scenes may be sad and invoke an emotional response. Sometimes the officials in the sporting event will make a call or penalty that causes the other team to be angry and outraged. Eventually, some people would fall asleep in their seats for a while. A little bit later, they’ll wake up again to continue watching the acts and scenes that follow. The audience is still captivated and waiting for the outcome to see if their team will win or if the movie ends well. Meanwhile, while their time and attention is held captive, they are foregoing and neglecting everything else outside in the natural world because they are stuck on the inside. Most sadly though, they are neglecting the connections to their family and friends who aren’t sports fans or movie buffs. Perhaps their family and friends are stuck watching a different type of never ending movie or sporting event.
That is the news in 2020. We should walk out of the theater or arena and toward the natural world and humankind. Don’t think of this as walking away from something bad. It’s easier to walk toward something good, or at the very least, something better. If you compare the thought of walking forward toward something versus walking away from something and if you really pay attention to a personal example each, then the difference will be clear and profound. You could use these as helpful exercises to enjoy yourself and others today in a noticeable way. Here is a very personal example: I found something indescribably helpful for me to lower my stress and anxiety while simultaneously making time and space in my mind and heart to appreciate more things about all people, especially the people close to me who are infected with discontent and contempt for political divisions. It's not a vitamin supplement, seminar or anything you can buy or subscribe to. Stop watching, listening and reading the views of the news the same way you can imagine walking out of a really bad movie. Have you ever walked out of a bad movie or left a sports event before the end? You can look at this example in two ways-the the difference is profound. Instead of walking away from the movie, imagine walking toward the daylight outside of the theater. Instead of walking out of the sports arena, imagine walking toward the outside where there is spaciousness and room to move about. If you decide to try an information cleanse- where you deliberately wean yourself of the habit of news and political commentary- you will need to set your intention with your goal in mind. Instead of walking away from this bad movie called political discourse, think of yourself walking toward spaciousness and the freedom to enjoy and appreciate the world and everybody around you. When we cut ourselves off from the daily news and our being absorbed in various interpretations of current events, we aren't running away or hiding from the outside world. In fact, the opposite is true- we’re walking toward the the real world, our neighbors, mother nature and the treasures that life has to offer. Conversely, when I am absorbed in the daily narrative of politics and sensational headlines, I am neglecting my time and my attention for people around me, the miracles of life and the realization that all people share basic goodness. The basic premise is about where we place our choice, effort, attention and neglect
To resist “x” requires energy and effort To support “x” requires energy and effort To accept “x” requires neither energy nor effort In the context of our current situation, “x” is the subject or object of our contemporary national debate. Only if this premise feels valid and the 3 characterizations above seem true to you is the following message worth reading. There are two sides to any coin- two choices. And then there is the coin itself, the third choice. We can choose to pick a side or we can accept the coin itself, effortlessly and without risk of loss. Both sides of the coin are predictable indefinite losers. Sadly, in the following analogy, both sides are inadvertent neglectors. Think of how a casino (or ‘the house”) always wins. Choosing not to choose is the best choice sometimes, but especially in the case of “x” and here is why: Supporters of X expend their time, energy and effort holding up and defending their choice to support “x”. They are invested in their support of “x” and “their time” means these individuals’ time plus these individuals’ communities, families and friends’ shared time. Supporters of “x” will suffer indefinitely by virtue of their counterparts’ resisting and this comes at the great expense (or compromise) of paying attention to some things that matters- family and the natural world. Those who support “x” have to pay attention to “x” at the expense of loved ones. Supporters of “x” cause the suffering of resistors and neglect their loved ones. The exact same premise holds true for resisters of “x”. They should reasonably expect to suffer throughout their struggle because they have to “push back” against the supporters the expense of paying attention to loved ones or more virtuous endeavors. There is inherent neglect in choosing to resist or support “x”. One could rarely recognize this while grasping onto their chosen side. The effortless way to recognize this is from a place of acceptance- emotional intelligence should be dominant over intellectual intelligence in this case. For whatever reasons someone may have to justify their support of or resistance to “x” is irrelevant because both sides will suffer and cause suffering. “X” isn’t going away soon and will be a central topic, regardless of nearly any outcome, in the foreseeable future. Resistors will continue to resist supporters of “x” and vis a versa. Acceptance as a choice does not mean accepting supporters nor accepting resistors. It means simply accepting the world and humankind for what they are and choosing to pay attention to them clearly as the only things that really matter. If you choose to either resist or support, you will suffer and neglect the ever-precious present moment. Both are a waste of energy and attention. Someone I share a unique connection with recently expressed their anxiety & frustration with the situation of “x” and how they are affected by it- and the consequences of how their relationships were being affected by “x”. The key here is how this person’s choice (to support or resist) is the cause of friction and dissonance. It’s not the fault of “situation x” but rather any person’s investment and attachment to support or resist the situation. In the last presidential election, approximately half of voting aged people did not participate in the vote. Of the half who did participate, half of those chose X and the other half chose Y. The majority consensus (the vast center) did not (nor could not) lose. If 25% chose red and 25% chose blue, then 50% (the majority) neither risked losing nor faced the consequence of having to resist or support the inevitable outcome. CHOOS ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING 3 OPTIONS RESIST --------------- ACCEPT --------------- SUPPORT Micah said: “If half the country chose blue and half chose red, I could flip a coin to choose between red or blue and only half of the country would be mad at me.” Micah missed the point that if he simply did not choose, no one would be mad at him and he would be part of the majority center. Accepting is choosing that supporters and resistors are both right and wrong, in their own rights. Summary: Whether you are stuck on supporting X or resisting X does not matter. The only way to prove to yourself that the answer is accepting neutrality is to disconnect your mind from news headlines and commence a complete “information cleanse” whereby you unsubscribe from the pastime of current events-All of it. This is something that takes discipline and deliberate intention with a positive outcome in mind. Just imagine what positive things you can do with the time you free up from your saved effort and by reclaiming a complete waste of time and attention? I am a recovering news addict. After counting days, weeks and as many as 4 months in 2019, I fell off the wagon and started “using” again. My tomorrow is today and, in my recovery, I want to support anyone who is conscious enough to see the validity of this principal. Steps:
Ok. Just be honest with yourself and admit that it would not kill you to try this thought experiment. Perhaps your news addiction is, at best, a bad habit. Whether you are deplorable or deranged, you have a third option to be neither. My personal experience is that the people around me recognized the positive changes in my demeanor when I stayed away from my news vice for a prolonged period. Rationale: Periodicals and news sources (broadcast, cable & digital) become outdated hourly, every 24 hours or weekly, at most. This type of “content” loses all of it’s value as the earth spins and is essentially content-free at the end of its shelf life. On the other hand, published literature found in temples, churches, libraries and bookstores last forever. |
The Question is the AnswerArchives
March 2024
Categories |
Proudly powered by Weebly