compassion conversion

True compassion is not just an emotional response, but a firm commitment founded on reason
~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

 

The recent event depicted in the photo has sparked debate about the meaning of this gesture and whether or not it constitutes "abuse". My own view is rather simple and consistent, I think, with the view of compassion expressed in the quote above.

First of all, I'd like to disclose that I have had several Buddhist teachers, all of whom had issues with impulsivity in relationships. One of them had a history of boundary violations with women including me, and whose teacher was also associated with scandal and abuse. 

There is a long list of Buddhist teachers who have been called out on their misconduct. Here is a sample. One would like to think that a religion promoting love and compassion would know how to practice it, but the reality is not so. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding about what compassion looks like in real life.

Back to the point of this blog post.

The problem is we tend to equate compassion with good intentions, a heart full of love and kindness, and being positively disposed toward another. While this may be good in itself, it does not mean that our actions will not cause harm to someone else, and remains a mere sentimental notion of compassion.

Compassion means to suffer with, i.e. with another person, and cannot be measured by intentions alone. 

In order to be compassionate (and not just have compassion), we need to think about the one who will be impacted by our actions, ideally before we act. We need to ask ourselves some questions like: how will my actions be perceived? How will they be received? Am I putting this person in an uncomfortable situation? Do they have even a choice? Am I imposing myself or my affection on them?

Compassion requires reflecting, not upon myself and my intentions, but upon the other person. Compassionate action is the fruit of reflection, not the spontaneous expression of good intentions, no matter how kind.

 
 
 

the relativity of power

 Men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them
~Margaret Atwood

What is power? Do you think you have any? And how do you know?

The answer, I think, is relative. You may think you're harmless (like the mouse, pictured) but, if others are afraid of you, you have power. 

If you are physically big, you naturally have more physical power. If you are a male, you usually have more physical power than a female. That is why women are generally afraid of men.

But power is not just about might.

Power depends largely on how others perceive you, and is influenced by social context. That is why bosses have power over employees, teachers have power over students, therapists over patients, and cops over civilans. It is a kind of psychological leverage relative to the social roles played by two otherwise equal human beings. One of them always has the potential to control or hurt the other in some way. It is not reciprocal. 

Power can also exist in a reciprocal partnership of equals, like between two friends or lovers, or between two strangers on the road. They have entrusted each other to some degree with mutual safety. In an ideal world, they will seesaw merrily along, in a balance of power and mutuality. If one of them decides to break the law or trust joining them together, he has taken unilateral control. He runs off with all the power while his partner comes crashing down.

Power depends on your size, your station in life, and how others perceive you. It is about relationship, and it is relative. If you want to know if you have power, ask the people around you. 

hearing amber

Your abusive partner doesn't have a probem with his anger; he has a problem with your anger
~Lundy Bancroft

The jury is out, deliberating until tomorrow. There has been so much social media coverage it is hard to get the truth. But for those with eyes to see, I think justice will prevail. 

Here's what I see: overwhelming public support for a master of deception who has no proof for claims of innocence, while the real victim is mercilessly mocked and scorned for having alluded to a truth nobody wants to hear. 

What has she done that has landed her the role of scapegoat? Denounce a Hollywood golden boy for his misconduct? She never publicly aired the details of their abusive relationship until he forced her to do so by filing a lawsuit in a state where court proceedings are filmed, staging the perfect set for a hearing in the court of public opinion.

An alarming number of Depp supporters are blind to the basic facts that disprove his case of defamation. On several documented occasions, he lost control of himself while high. He destroyed property, grabbed his wife, and said and did cruel and demeaning things to her. He admitted that he was unable to recall his behavoiur sometimes, even when he was not high, and also recognized wrongdoing in personal written confessions in which he attributed his actions to "the monster" living inside of him. That is abuse. Case closed.

None of this makes other facts about him untrue. On the stand Depp was calm, cool and collected. He strode confidently in and out of the courtroom, shaking the hands of security guards*. He had a cute smile that he tried unsuccessfully to conceal with his hand in court, betrayed by the amused tilt of his head under his brimmed hat and those dimples poking out the side... awwww

Seriously though, abuse and charm are frequently flipsides of the same person. I wish we all could see.

*he is also known outside the courtroom for public displays of kindness toward those of lower socioeconomic standing, even women

social distancing from intrusive thoughts

~ The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it (Terry Pratchett)

Never in 25 years of practising psychotherapy have I seen as many cases of obsessive thinking as in the past 12 months of this pandemic. The surge in the number of eating disorders, OCD and substance (or other) addiction is breathtaking, and it's not due to Covid, at least not directly. Social isolation, though necessary to preventing viral spread, has also provided fertile ground for the proliferation of toxic thinking. 

I've long believed, "in your house in your head", meaning: the more time we spend enclosed within the walls of our home, the more likely we are to be enclosed within the confines of our mind. This leaves us vulnerable to the pull of rumination that, like an undertow, can plunge us into the downward spiral of self-sabotage. We need to get out of the house.

But there's more to mental hygiene than escapism. 

Intrusive thoughts enter my mind the way an intruder enters my home. I may not see him coming at first, and I can't stop him from showing up at the front door, but I can choose whether or not to let him in. Similarly, with intrusive thoughts, I cannot control whether or not they show up in my head, but I can choose whether or not to give them admission into my mind. If I allow intrusive thoughts to take up mental space, they become much like the intruder who, once he has made himself at home, becomes much harder to get rid of. The cyclone of toxic thinking can lead to hours of fun in the form of self-doubt, obsessive rumination and/or relapse.

Beware of thoughts that initially present as self-preserving doubts, "what-ifs" or "maybe-I-shoulds". They can quickly become toxic, turning against us like an immune system gone awry. We need to distance oursleves from them as much as from the virus. Do not let them into your head, not even for a second.

why showing up late (or not at all) is rude

 ~A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light cannot get out (NASA)

Some people are mystified as to why their buddies get miffed when they change plans last minute. They cannot understand what "the big deal" is, especially if the change is justified from their point of view.

It is really not that complicated.

When I commit to a date with someone, they now expect me, and are leaving a space for me in their timetable. If I do not come when expected, or do not show up at all, I am leaving them with a hole.

When we show up late (or not at all), we have not only taken the liberty to do what we want with our own time, we have taken the liberty to do what we want with someone else's too, leaving them with a debt of time in exchange for the gift of accomodation. 

entitlement

But the issue has to do with land, which is our land (Bashar Al-Assad)

Embedded in the word "entitled" is a sense of being able to possess or claim something as mine. Its roots are in the word "title" which means of course the name of a thing, or a right to property.

Originally, it had a positive connotation, invoked as a means of pushing back on a repressive regime, person or condition trying to remove something belonging to someone else. In this spirit, the declaration of human rights proclaims as "inalienable" things which cannot or should not be taken away. 

These days, "a sense of entitlement" has a more negative connotation, claiming for myself things to which I have no right at all. It has come to be associated with spoiled brats and bullies whose scope of privilege far exceeds their basic human rights.

It's a touchy issue.

For example, I may have a right to dignity, but am I entitled to respect? I may have a right to freedom of expression, but am I entitled to be heard? I may have a right to be whomever I want, but am I entitled to be seen that way?   

The recognition of human rights has enabled women, children, minority and indigenous peoples to enjoy freedoms of which they had once been brutally and casually dispossessed. There has been a beautiful shift in perspective, not because it has expanded the breadth of personal entitlement, but because it has limited it. We have identified as "violence" the act of forcing someone to relinquish basic freedom, and acknowledged as "wrong" privileges once claimed at the expense of someone else. 

Entitlement is not about where my rights begin, but about where they end. We need to remember that if we do not want the exercise of rights to blur the line between my freedom and yours.

winning strategies: avoidance versus resistance

Resist the devil and he will flee  (James 4:7)

When faced with a temptation or mental obsession, we try to overcome by avoiding it or running away. This is a good defense when the object we are fleeing is greater than we are (think: tornado). We simply cannot face it and win.

Most of the time, however, with our greatest internal enemies-- addictions, obsessive thoughts and fears-- we will at some point be unable to run away. What will we do then? Resist them.

It's like the hiker who was being chased by a mountain lion. As the lion closed in on him, he stopped, turned around and screamed as loud as possible; and the animal fled!

The best defense is a good offense.

Most mental obsessions are rooted in cognitive distortions and lies. The key to resisting them is to confront them with thoughts that are louder than they are, that make more sense, or are more just, right and true. 

Most carnal temptations are rooted in craving. The key to resisting them is to supplant them with passions that are stronger, deeper and more meaningful or longer lasting. 

Avoidance strategies put space or distance between ourselves and the enemy; resistance actually wins by being bigger, better and stronger. 

addendum: I can't help but notice how this is analogous to our fight against COVID-19, and the difference between using masks/social distancing (avoidance) and building immunity (resistance).