A way to peace

At a conference sponsored by Emory University on the desperate need for an ethical system based simply on compassion rooted in the biological understanding that we are born wired for compassion, yet exist in a culture that posits the self and individualism as the core values--to succeed is to win by force what one wants against all other beings--the Dalai Lama argued a simple progression--dialog, not conflict, is existentially necessary, for it is through dialog that persons come to fully know one another. As they fully know one another, they can understand one another--this is where we each come from; this is what we each have experienced; and this is where, despite the obvious differences, we find our commonality. As we understand one another, there can be peace as we compassionately seek to feed one another, meeting our needs and nourishing one another.

Let me unpack what this thought means for us.

First, there comes the understanding that compassion is not a radical alteration of our being, requiring an intensive change of heart or mind. Instead, it is recapturing the essence of what it is to be created. It is our cultural context that is the radical alteration of what is our basic nature. 

Science, particularly psychology and zoology, confirm this understanding. Dr. Frans B.M. de Waal reported on extensive study done with primates, working with Bonobos, Chimpanzees, and Capuchin monkeys, that revealed, not a learned compassion and generosity, but INNATE compassion as these animals cared for one another, shared with one another, and exhibited a comprehension of fairness. Dr. Richard Davidson reported on studies of extremely young children (aged 6-8 mos.) that also revealed evidence that we are born with an understanding of what compassion looks like and is. Infants were able to recognize and affirm acts of help and generosity, and recoiled from images of hindrance, interference, or thwarting. Again, the evidence is that compassion is hard-wired into our essential being.

As a pastor-theologian, the impact is astounding, for these studies seem to confirm the scriptural assertion that humanity is created in the image of God; i.e., in the love that God is (other-centered and self-emptying). To practice the compassionate life then is a means by which to fulfill our being made in the image of God. Contrarily, to not do so is a path away from the presence of God and counter to our created being. In utterly practical terms, a religion rooted in judgment, a Pharisaic emphasis on the rule of law over persons, institutionalism opposed to personalism, and self-serving as opposed to self-emptying is not and cannot be defined as faith. Faith is trusting oneself to God so much so that God’s way of being becomes our way of life. You see the contradiction, then, between religion and faith, if religion becomes something other than loss of self into God. 

So, second, there comes a direction for faith communities as they seek to define their work. We become the communities wherein adherents can reconnect with and embody their essential natures as children of God; i.e., children of love. 

Now, we see the import of the Dalai Lama’s logical progression, each step of which is actually an affirmation of basic teachings by Christ himself. 

Dialog is the starting point. Dialog is an open exchange between persons in which they share who they are, how they are, where they are, as they are. A true dialog is devoid of competitive thinking. It is simply the exchange of one person’s identity with another’s, a mutual sharing of being. It is able to handle the inevitable conflict between persons through a recognition that differences are simply a piece of what we are, but with a loss of the need to be right in exchange for a meeting in love. So, we get into an argument. We stop, turning it to dialog. We ask “Why do you feel this way? What is going on? What have I done? What have you done?” 

Such questioning is seeking to know the other person and to be known by them. We can see who they are as we come to know their experience, their feelings, and their responses. Without the need to be right replaced by the need to be together, differences fall into the weave of the relationship. I see this way, you see that way, and this is who we are together. Furthermore, even as it helps us recognize the differences and how they interact with one another, we can also find the commonality that might well transcend the differences. We are both human beings. Faith informs us that we are both children of God. If we are both human beings and children of God, then we also realize that in the most general of terms, our goals are the same--we want to be happy; we want to be free of suffering; and we want to have our needs met. When the specifics fall into contradiction--if I get what I want, then you will not get what you want--then we use our commonality to find a compromise in which we both get more of what we need than do without. But that recognition of commonality must remain in the forefront.

That becomes the key to understanding. Understanding is using knowledge of self and others to find that place that is compassionate to all. To care for others, we care for ourselves; to care for ourselves, we care for others. Christ said as much in two instances--”Love your neighbor as you love yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have them to do for you.” It also leads us to deeply consider the difference between wants and needs. Conflict often arises because we do not get our wants met, so we blame those who stand in our way. Wants are things that we find gratifying to ourselves, bring pleasure, and tend to be momentary in their comfort--e.g., I want ice cream--it tastes good, is fun to eat, but as soon as I finish I know I ate what I did not need. As we focus instead on what we need, we focus on what are actually and truly essentials. We need food, water, shelter, and safety. These bring lasting contentment because they bring security. They give us a base from which to empty ourselves because we know that even as we empty ourselves, we will find ourselves nourished and filled. We can safely give to another because we know we will live. We can compromise securely.

Which leads to peace. We can coexist. We see and accept our interdependence. We see that one gives to the other, and the other gives back to the one so both can live fully as who and what they are. Dr. de Waal noted this situation with his monkeys. In one group, the experiment was to reward two monkeys, but one got more than the other. What they found was that the monkey who got more actually shared its bounty with the one who got less. If monkeys can do so, why not us? There can be peace through the practice of enough--I will limit my wants to what is enough so I can live fully and securely, ensuring that everyone else will have enough, too. Suddenly, Christ’s admonition to “Go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor” comes to clarity. All shall have enough. There shall be peace.