i find the most interesting conversations at tribe. (www.tribe.net)
last night, someone posted an outraged item about a rumor that the US may be attacking Iran soon. they were looking, it seemed, for others to agree it was a horrible idea, and to take action and contact their representatives to urge them not to do so.
setting aside for the moment that it has hardly been the case lately that anyone actually adheres to the law and hold for congress to approve such an action, i pointed out instead that one is not likely to talk a dog out of trying to swallow a bone… and the man who would think to take that bone from the dog should expect to be bitten.
lively conversation of generally partisan nature ensued, from which, as usual, i abstained. but a thread of more contemplative manner also continued, and in this thread, i did, too.
eventually, it occurred to me there are some similarities between this situation and many others. and the context of personal responsibility and involvement once more rose to the fore. the original poster responded to the dog and bone and man comment, calling me a ‘genius’, at which time, i wrote something that i am placing here as a reminder for myself:
hardly. =/ i’m often a muddled, confused, contrary, and ignorant fool. but i rely on the words of those who have demonstrated over time and with consistency that there is a method and means by which even a goofball like myself might be liberated.
sometimes, it’s just enough to keep me going.
you know, this will sound contradictory, but i am reminded of a teaching HH The Dali Lama gave on compassion. he used an analogy about three men by a river. unfortunately, i cannot locate his words and must rely on my own. =/
three Buddhists are standing by a raging river. the first one decides he must cross and moves to enter the water. the second one, knowing the river is too dangerous and surely the first one will drown, tells them not to do it. the first one does not listen and continues toward the waters. the third one, unwilling to see the first one injure themselves, walks to them and insists they not enter the water. the two come to blows, and the third one knocks the first one out and drags them to safety. the second one berates the third one for choosing violence, saying that a good Buddhist would never do as they have done.
the question at this point was posed, “which of these have demonstrated compassion?”
the answer was — the third one. and HH the Dali Lama went on to explain that, while it is best to be kind and do no harm, it is also encumbent upon us to prevent harm when we can. he said that the second Buddhist was uncompassionate to allow the first one to enter the water, uncompassionate to remain unmoved by the idea of how he would die for doing so. the second one was also uncompassionate to castigate the third one for acting with compassion and doing whatever was necessary to keep the first one from harm.
i think about that in this context and it seems i immediately find contradications all over the place… because it is impossible to prevent all the harm that is occurring in this moment. and it is impossible to change the past in such manner that this moment would not occur.
but it is not impossible to change myself in such ways as to work toward being that third one. and if i begin the work in this moment, while there may well be many moments in which i cannot be that third one, there will, eventually, be one in which i can.
hrm. so perhaps there is no contradiction after all… which is a relief. (chuckle)