Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day
Nondual Highlights Issue #2545, Saturday, August 5, 2006, Editor: Mark
The One Suggestion
August 4, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Steve Bhaerman
There are no sides, only angles -- and when we view things from
the right angle, it’s obvious we’re all on the same
side. -- Swami Beyondananda
The three peoples of the Ten Commandments are in one holy hell of
a mess.
At a time when we should be mobilizing the wisdom and reverence
we share to cultivate miracles, we seem to be creating
anti-miracles instead. Last week, an Israeli air strike killed
and wounded young children in Qana, the Lebanese village where
Jesus was said to have performed his first miracle by turning
water into wine. Maybe the Dalai Lama was right when he
reportedly joked that if we humans destroy ourselves, that would
finally create the peace on earth we’ve longed for
The discourse has reached a new low as the predictable
rationalizations come from both sides: "Look what they are
doing to us!" and "We have no choice -- they MADE us do
it!" From one side, I have received devastating photos of
dead children (occasionally accompanied by a toxic anti-semitic
screed). From the other comes the "logical"
rationalization, "If the Arabs lay down their weapons,
there’ll be no more war. If the Israelis lay down theirs,
there’ll be no more Israel."
"The Arabs don’t care about their children! They
purposely put them in harm’s way!" is the Israeli war
cry. The Arabs, they tell us, celebrate when an Israeli child is
killed. The Jews, on the other hand, are sad when they have to
kill Lebanese children. Well, guess what? Those kids are just as
dead regardless of the intention. And any time people say
"we had no choice," that is already wrong. It is a
failure of imagination, and a triumph of fear. It may be a
reassuring rationalization inside the state of Israel or even the
Jewish community at large, but outside those circles, it’s
transparent as hell.
Meanwhile, in the other so-called "religious" camp, we
have a scorpionic culture where revenge itself is a way of life
and people don’t seem to mind stinging themselves to death.
After a century that produced Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the
Dalai Lama as examples for how to "overgrow"
oppression, the best these people can do is blow themselves and
innocent civilians up? The Arab world has never done a thing for
the Palestinians except set them up as patsies in their
oxymoronic "holy war" against Israel
The problem is, this is a tribal conflict, and tribal conflicts
never really end, at least not through war. The only way they end
is through an upwelling of moral authority from one side or the
other or both which say "enough killing and enough dying,
there must be another way." Sadly, there doesn’t yet
seem to have been enough killing or enough dying.
The other factor -- the real elephant in the living room here --
is that there is no congruent worldwide authority to stop the
fighting and make it stick, and turn the tide toward building the
infrastructure of peace. The United States’ interest in the
region is purely imperialistic, and this is apparent to just
about everyone. Given the Iraqi Horror Picture Show -- or what
Jon Stewart calls "Mess-opotamia" -- we have zero moral
authority in the Arab world or for that matter, in any world. And
while we excuse and justify everything Israel does in its
"defense" (emboldening the militarists there, as here)
our policy toward the Arabs -- as witnessed by the civilian death
toll since we took Iraq out of the frying pan and tossed it into
the fire -- seems to be "control burn genocide."
As for the rest of us -- those who understand the definition of
insanity as "continuing to do the same thing over and over
and expecting different results" -- what do we do? How do we
handle the fear-filled positionality of those trapped on both
sides of the issue? Is there a way we can change the level of
discourse and help turn a tragic disaster into a worldwide
learning opportunity?
The One Suggestion: We’re All In It Together
We’ve had thousands of years to "live by" the Ten
Commandments, and looking at history we’d have to sadly
conclude that either those Commandments haven’t done the
job, or we haven’t. Maybe the whole idea of
"commandments" just engenders resistance. Or maybe ten
are just too many of ‘em. Maybe a whole new approach is in
order, like maybe ... One Suggestion.
Actually, there has been one suggestion throughout history that
has been largely ignored: Treat others as you would choose to be
treated. When you take every religious path from African
Traditional to Zoroastroanism, all of them have the same notion
at their root -- some version of the Golden Rule. One major
problem with the invocation to "Love thy neighbor as
thyself" is that most of us have learned from the cultural
"field" to NOT love ourselves, but that is a longer
conversation.
The Swami has said there are two kinds of people in the world --
the kind of people who divide people into two kinds of people,
and the kind who don’t. At the risk of sounding like the
former, I suggest there are two competing worldviews that are
rapidly bringing the conversation to a head:
1. We’re all in it together.
2. It’s every man for himself.
While our religious institutions pay lip service to the "all
in it together" view, our far more influential commercial
institutions worship at the "every man for himself"
shrine. We take the Darwinist (actually social Darwinist) credo
at face value, "survival of the fittest." Actually,
more recent research in biology tells us that the real
"natural law" is "survival of the fitting."
That which best fits the environment, survives. And in the
current environment -- a world on the brink of either great
disaster or great breakthrough -- "survival of the
fittest" doesn’t fit. Why? Because we can no longer
afford to spend the energy and resources protecting ourselves
from each other.
I’ve been inspired recently working with cell biologist
Bruce Lipton on a book where we seek to apply the wisdom of the
body to the body politic. Your body is a "community" of
50 trillion cells closely cooperating to bring the world
"you" every day. Cells may look different from each
other, have different duties and needs, but cells and organs
"understand" they’re all in it together for the
good of the common organism. They’re in
"competition," only in the original Greek meaning of
the word, "to strive together." Each system is striving
together with the others to create health and functionality. In
other words, it’s not a normal state of affairs for the
liver to invade the pancreas and claim the Islets of Langerhans
for its own.
What if we looked at the nations of the world -- the peoples, the
tribes -- each as an organ designed to make a unique contribution
to the whole? Sound too idealistic? Contemplate the alternative,
then. Consider that biology tells us that cooperation engenders
greater efficiency, effectiveness and awareness. Or, if
you’re into the Scriptures, consider that not even the
religious right has been able to twist Jesus’s words into
"Blessed are the war-makers," or "the mightiest
armies shall inherit the earth."
It’s the Behavior, Stupid!
So how do we generate the "moral authority" to stop the
killing and cultivate the forces of cooperation? The first step
is to make a distinction between people (or "a people")
and their behavior. Justice in its simplest form is applying
rules fairly across the board. This would seem simple enough, but
we’re conditioned by habit to exempt ourselves from the
rules we make for others. A friend of mine who was a private eye
in a city we’ll call "Metropolis" once attended a
party where high level officials -- including a well-known judge
-- were snorting cocaine. My friend had the audacity to approach
the judge and say, "Isn’t this what you send people to
jail for?
The judge replied -- without a lick of irony -- "Oh, well
those people are criminals."
The first important step -- and this can be undertaken by an
alliance of existing peace and justice organizations in the world
-- is to come to some agreement as to the appropriate behavior on
this "shrinking world that could definitely use a good
shrink." This is a conversation that should be taking place
in every town and village on the planet, from exclusive suburb to
primitive village. Seriously. We have -- in the form of the World
Café and other nonviolent communications models -- plenty of
techniques for calling forth extraordinary wisdom from ordinary
folks.
In ratifying a "Declaration of Interdependence" or
whatever we call it -- from the grassroots up -- we are
establishing "new rules" based on the One Suggestion of
"We’re all in it together." This doesn’t mean
some sticky co-dependent relationship where the working stiffs
support parasites. On the contrary, it infers participation. In
the body, there is universal health care and full employment --
truly "no cell left behind." But every cell must
participate.
In contrast to the "death trip" our current regime
seems to be on, guaranteeing us perpetual warfare, loss of civil
liberties, environmental destruction and growing gap between rich
and poor, what if we began to "feed" the
"we’re all in it together" paradigm? What would it
look like to live for our countries instead of dying for them?
What if we declared a new mission for the world, to go along with
the "new rules": We are here on the planet to re-grow
the Garden from the grassroots up, and have a heaven of a time
doing it.
By what authority would we or could we do this? Well, by the
authority of all we know in our heads and in our hearts. Put
another way, ancient wisdom and modern science BOTH can’t be
wrong, can they?
Moral Authority -- From the Ideal to the Real Deal
What if -- as suggested earlier -- enough people around the
world, influential and otherwise, ratified a standard of behavior
that would apply universally? What if this were presented to the
United Nations -- currently a very flawed institution, but all we
have internationally -- as a mandate? These are the
universally-applied principles that we the people of the world
agree to hold ourselves to.
Would this mean the military would "disappear?" Of
course not, not anymore than you would want your immune system to
disappear. But the role would change so that resources could be
mobilized in times of need or disaster, and so that very targeted
operations could be initiated against "sociopathogens."
From time to time, we might expect "preemptive
non-force" to fail and a disagreement to degenerate into
violence. Or perhaps, a criminal gang needs to be defused and
disarmed.
In these cases, there is a need for a completely transparent
"police action" to see to it that the malignancy (i.e.,
toxic behavior in violation of the guidelines a vast majority of
humans agree on) doesn’t spread. If you consider the
inventiveness of weapons makers, could you imagine
"weapons" that temporarily immobilize without doing
harm? Seriously. Or humorously, for that matter. What would have
happened had Israel dropped nitrous oxide on Hezbollah?
Fundamental to this new world view is the unwavering
understanding that war itself is a "racket" good for
"absolutely nothing." At the same time, we must also
realize the awesome opportunity -- that we humans have the
intelligence, the imagination, and the technology to play and win
what Buckminster Fuller called the World Game: "Make the
world work, for 100% of humanity, in the shortest possible time,
through spontaneous cooperation, without ecological offense or
the disadvantage of anyone."
So what’s standing in the way? Before we point to a group --
whether that be the neocons or Hezbollah or the
"international bankers" or the reptiles from outer
space -- we must understand one thing: The overwhelming majority
of human beings -- when removed for a moment from fear-mongering
manipulation -- would prefer to live together in peace, joy,
health and prosperity. Only a deeply-flawed individual would
deprive themselves of that future just so they can deprive
someone else. For people like that -- hey, where’s Jack
Kevorkian when you need him?
So again, what’s in the way? What’s to keep 80% or 90%
of humanity from having their way in spite of the small group of
pro-death activists? In response to the ominous thought that
"the whole world is controlled by just a few people," I
say "Great news!" It means there are way, way more of
us than there are of them. Like the classic story of the Lone
Ranger and Tonto being caught in an ambush. "Well
Tonto," says the Masked Man, "We’re surrounded by
Indians. Looks like we’re done for."
And Tonto says, "What you mean WE, kemosabe?"
When we the people of the world look at the warmakers and say,
"What you mean WE, kemosabe?" it will send a signal to
the cosmos that there is indeed intelligent life on this planet.
So what do we do in the interim? What part can we play to bring
about that day? First of all, entertain the possibility. One of
the deadliest diseases of the spirit we suffer in our postmodern
culture is what Michael Lerner calls "cynical realism,"
and what Swami calls "smartyrdom." We are just too
smart, too jaded to be hopeful. To avoid the hurt of failing at
something noble, to avoid being -- God forbid -- a fool for love,
the cynical realist will wink and nod and say, "It’s
always been that way, it’s always going to be that way, so
I’m going to get mine." And that’s how those too
smart to be a fool for love end up being a fool for evil.
Secondly, let go of your story. Part of the intransigence in the
Middle East (and every other region where rivalry has turned to
hatred) has to do with people so identifying with their stories
-- or their "people’s" story -- that they end up
living a surrogate life based on something that happened
generations ago. The worst thing about it is that it begets more
of the same, and stands as an obstacle both to learning and to
making a real contribution to the world.
As a kid growing up in a Jewish family, I was well-immersed in
Jewish history ("They tried to kill us, we survived,
let’s eat!"). Thank God we had no relatives that we
knew of who died in the Holocaust, but the horror of that was
always real for me, as was the slogan, "Never again!"
But at some point in my adult life, the question arose, did
"never again" mean never again for the Jews? Or never
again for anyone? If the lesson learned and the sacred mission
arising out of that horror is never again will genocide be
tolerated for anyone, then perhaps the awful suffering has
actually made a contribution to the world.
Finally, we need to get off our head trips and join together on
the heart trip. Just as surely as heart cells "entrain"
to beat together, our individual human hearts are attuned to the
same attuning fork. It’s our minds that keep us separated.
Now I know some hardheaded paragons of rationality are shaking
their hard heads right about now, clucking about how I
underestimate the power of reason. Not at all. I’ve seen the
power reason has to provide us with all the rationalizations we
need -- to act irrationally. Now we need the power of reason to
be used in the service of the heart, to generate the yet
unthought of solutions that will prevent the unthinkable.
- posted to NondualitySalon