|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
(Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
Current rating: 0 |
by Darrin Drda
Email: d_drda (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
13 Sep 2006
|
|
To love ones’ enemies is extremely subversive, not just emotionally, but politically – perhaps now more than ever. |
As everyone knows, September 11th marked the 5th anniversary of the infamous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As it turns out, it was also the 2nd Monday of the month, which in the context of my local meditation group means that it’s the one session of the month set aside for Loving-kindness meditation, also known as "metta" practice, which I typically lead.
The practice is fairly simple, in theory. It’s based on the premise all sentient beings are alike in having a primary desire to be happy. Of course, we’re all seeking happiness in disparate and myriad ways, some of which might seem ridiculous or downright disturbing. Indeed, some sentient beings seem to be hard at work destroying other sentient beings in their confused quest for happiness. But the main idea is that despite the means, the motivation behind our behavior is the same. When taken to heart, this insight gives rise to a sense of compassion for our common plight.
"Metta" practice itself involves the use of "resolves," or earnest wishes for the well-being of a certain person or group of individuals. The recipient is brought to mind as an object of concentration while the resolves are repeated, usually in silence. "May you be safe from harm…may you be healthy…may you be happy…may you be at peace…may you be free," etc. Traditionally, one begins by focusing on one’s self, then moving outwards to friends and family, then maybe community… country… world… eventually including all sentient beings "in all universes."
Clearly, nobody gets left out. Which is where this practice gets tricky. Because at some point in the expansion of our bubble of loving-kindness, we come up against characters we might not particularly like – perhaps even openly despise: the Bushes and Bin Ladens, the super-patriots and the suicide bombers of the world. Suddenly the bubble bursts and the heart hardens. The mind insists that X does NOT deserve to be healthy and happy and at peace. In fact, what they REALLY deserve is…
But wait — wouldn’t the world be a much better place if all those "evildoers" were truly happy and at peace, free from debilitating and dangerous misconceptions? And actually, isn’t that what I want for myself too? So the inner dialogue goes; the heart softens again, and the meditation continues. It isn’t always easy. In fact, it’s often damn difficult. But I’ve discovered that it IS possible to feel genuine compassion and love – if even for a few moments at a time – for people who normally disgust me.
So on that dreadful anniversary, I was reminded by a Buddhist practice of Christ’s directive to LOVE YOUR ENEMIES. And it struck me, as it has before, of how completely radical that is, in concept and in practice. It’s extremely subversive, not just emotionally, but politically – perhaps now more than ever. Just to sit silent and still is to defy America’s overdriven consumer culture. And to offer understanding – let alone compassion – to terrorists could surely be construed as high treason to many on the right, just as many on the left might consider the idea of extending love to Cheney and Rumsfeld to be offensive at least, and ineffectual at best.
My own experience has shown me that loving my enemies isn’t ineffectual, but richly rewarding and transformative. After all, September 11 also marked the anniversary of "satyagraha," Ghandi’s campaign of nonviolence that changed the course of history and introduced a powerful, new form of political action. Though today we face a different and perhaps greater challenge, I like to think that the world can still be changed through peace, love and understanding. It certainly couldn’t hurt to try.
May all beings be happy and at peace. |
See also:
http://www.darrindrda.org
http://www.myspace.com/darrindrda
|
Related stories on this site:
Mahatma Gandhi: A Century of Peaceful Protest
Sisters Carol Gilbert, Jackie Hudson, and Ardeth Platte Inspire Nonviolent Action in Washington, DC, on September 26 and 27
| 
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license. |
Comments
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Sep 2006
|
|
Awww, DD - I love YOU. BD |
|
(Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Philip Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Sep 2006
|
|
Loving your enemies is a profoundly liberating experience. I second that emotion :-). |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Radical Transformation
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2006
|
How is the love of ones enemies made manifest and visible?
And who is actually an enemy? It seems the enemy is usually defined as our foe or opponent. Being able to confront this enemy is not so simple these days since displeasure with the Bushes and Bin Ladens of the world is easy to feel but difficult to do much about. Therefore, these guys cannot really be my enemies since I hold no power or ability to challenge them much at all. They seem to have become only symbols to focus our displeasure and fear toward.
To send positive messages to them maybe helpful, richly rewarding and subversive to the individual, but what happens to those they continue to harm? I appreciate and give space to those who want to send them love and peace, but I hope you will agree there also remains a place for those who bear witness to the oppressors wherever they are found.
As we stand, not to call a few “our enemies”, but to give hope to those they oppress we let those oppressed know they are not alone. We also allow the oppressors to know not everyone has ignored their actions. We stand to give hope and voice to those who feel the violence of others. Gandhi and King worked nonviolently to oppose those who some might call “enemies”. They often did so openly and in public not to show hatred to others, but bear witness and hope for all to consider.
I applaud the notion of extending love to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ben Laden. I do not find if offensive at all. However, I do hope this radical love includes and allows for more than a private meditation only to be considered transformative. I have never felt closer to a focused, meditative state of being about the work of the highest calling than when I stand and give witness at an alternative, possibly unpopular, nonviolent peaceful public and visible presence. I hope there is room for many radical transformative ways to help bring compassion to the world! There are many variations on the powerful political actions we may take, each offering possible roads to peace, love and understanding. I hope we all might walk that path as we work to change the world: separate when necessary and together when possible! |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2006
|
Dear RT,
There's no question of the importance of bearing witness and taking a visible stand, whether through peaceful protest, direction action or other means. As you say, "there are many variations on the powerful political actions we may take."
Personally, I like to think that offering peace, love & understanding has a positive effect not only on the "practitioner," but also on the recipient. There have been studies that support this notion (and probably some that don't), but for me it's an intuitive thing.
More to the point, I think that the dichotomy between "changing myself" and "changing the world" is a false one. To me, they are so closely linked as to be indistinguishable. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Philip Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2006
|
RT raised a very good question, who is our enemy? There are enemies we know personally, i.e. those who dislike us, hate us, or otherwise want to see us come to harm, and then there are enemies who might not harm us directly, but whose actions we don’t like because they are harmful to others. In terms of direct, gut-level effects, I find it much more challenging and much more transforming, both for myself and for the object of prayer, to pray for and love the personal enemy. If you can actually show love directly to these people, it can transform them, too. The impersonal enemy will never know your love for them, so you have to have strong faith that your prayers will have an effect.
Since Darrin mentioned Christ’s directive, I’ll quote that here, since it’s the model I follow:
Matthew 5:43-44: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
It's not easy. I need to remind myself of these words every day. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Shunka Wakan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2006
|
|
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." -Robert Heinlein |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by K
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2006
|
|
I would like to offer up a thought to this discussion just for historical accuracy. Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi, 446) Gandhi wanted to wage an armed revolt against the British, but couldn't because he didn't have any guns. Gandhi used non-violent resistence because he had no other options, not because he wanted to. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2006
|
K,
Regardless of the circumstances at the inception, Ghandi nevertheless utilized methods of nonviolent resistance later employed by civil rights leaders and others. By the end of his life, he surely had said much more about nonviolence and love than about guns. I would guess that the quote above is from fairly early in his life(?) At any rate, despite his inconsistencies, he certainly possessed the kind of "radical heart" I allude to above and that I admire. |
|
A Bit of Context |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2006
|
A little googling brought up the fact that the quote IS from relatively early in his life. It occurred during a period when he apparently hoped that cooperation with the Bristish might yield movement toward independence for India. He actually recurited soldiers for WWI and the quote is from April 1918., actually quite late in that war. Given the long boat ride from India, I doubt it had much effect.
Here's a couple of references that are helpful in describing where Gandhi ended up politically, rather than where started from:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_nanda_ghandi.htm
http://www.plumbingsupply.com/gandhi.html
I think this is the actual text where the quote was taken from:
http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi/part5.chapter27.html
This doesn't change my opinion of Gandhi one bit. I doubt that K.'s conclusion is supportable, given the abundant evidence of Gandhi's later, more fully developed ideas about the use of non-violence.
If nothing else, there are many leaders who have the option of usng either violence or non-violence to accomplish their goals. No good leader would purposely use violence when non-violence will work. Sadly, I guess that's one of the things that sets our president apart from good leaders. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by yaboi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2006
|
|
What a pile of self serving idiocy. Radical? Real radical you would run away from and turn in to the police. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by K
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Sep 2006
|
|
I would like to comment on Gandhi's nonviolent resistence being adopted by civil rights leaders. I assume when you say civil rights leaders you are speaking of Martin Luther King Jr. One of the most brilliant things MLK Jr. did was understand the power of the victim. One of MLK Jr.'s standard procedures was to send people from his movement to a town several days before he arrived to hold a rally. The job of these people was to vandalize, disrupt the peace, and otherwise harrass the towns people so that when he arrived and the people where ready for a fight he, in turn, would look like the victim of racist aggression. Towns that he spoke in that where informed of his plan ahead of time often simply ignored the people he sent to stir things up and the result was a truly peaceful civil rights rally. But peaceful rallys don't make headlines and he understood that. I want to stress to you that I am saying all of this outside the context of the civil rights movement as a whole. What I am trying to do is point out that Martin Luther King Jr. used violence as an essential part of his overall plan to get the nation focused on the problems of civil rights in America, he just did it in the opposite way most people think of. |
|
K Is Komplete Nonsense |
by fyi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Sep 2006
|
It sounds to me like K is trolling here. His assertion that civil rights workers had to stir up violence is complete utter BS. In fact, it sounds a lot like he's reading this from the "KKK Komplete History of the Civil Rights Movement" or some similar piece of racist propaganda. How about it, K? You want to cite your source here?
Just for starts, although MLK was no doubt an important figure in the struggle for civil rights, but it was grassroots organizers that were the core of the movement. I'd suggest reading Charles Payne's "I've Got the Light of Freedom" as one example of a good history.
Anyone who knows anything about the history of the civil rights movement knows that there was no need to provoke violence. There was more than enough of that due to simply standing up for civil rights, marching, or registering voters in the face of racists. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by nfnlb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2006
|
The problem with this sort of thinking is there is much cultural confusion over what love looks like.
Don't live by hate, but also don't live by fanciful images of love and what it looks like. Sometimes, some action needs to be stopped, even aggressively.
Love is not always pretty or nice. My experience in this country is that the great majority of people who talk about peace and love are as much protecting their own ego self as expressing real compassion. Christ went into the temple and threw down the money changers tables.
There is no pretty road to peace possible now. It is going to be violent and bloody. How much so is the question at this point. That and how many peace loving progressives and liberals will abdicate from their responsibility because they continue to be afraid of this truth. |
|
Re: (Still) The Most Radical Thing Ever |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
I totally agree with nfnlb that sometimes "action needs to be stopped...aggressively."
But I disagree that the road to peace "is going to be violent and bloody." IMHO, such is not the road to peace. We all know from personal experience, history, and common sense that violence begets violence. To resort to violence is to lose the battle, regardless of the outcome. |
|
