Reconciliation Notes
Internal Reconciliation
For those who want to live peaceful and happy lives,
reconciliation, meditation suggests, is the answer. When we are reconciled to
what really is happening, instead of fabricating stories about what we think should
be happening, we act in ways that build peace and confidence instead of anxiety
and anger.
Consider this:
· It only takes
one for reconciliation.
And consider this:
· Every
situation is reconcilable.
Many of the fundamental “truths” we learn from meditation,
such as impermanence and not-self, can be hard to reconcile ourselves with. So
hard, in fact, that we dream of things that are permanent and substantial in an
attempt to escape the inescapable conditions of our life. But such imaginings
pull us away from the basic facts of our condition: we are impermanent beings, predisposed
to suffering, conditioned by the world in which we live.
This is why the idea of reconciliation is so powerful.
Reconciliation isn’t about overcoming our basic nature; it is about reconciling
us to the way the world really is.
Reconciliation is where I have come to see that yes, this is
what is happening, that these are just the conditions of the world as I
perceive it in this moment, and that if I
reconcile, neither attaching nor running, then peace arises. Reconciliation
is when I no longer pick or choose, as Sengcan writes, when I no longer give my
amygdala control of my mind, allowing it to jerk me around emotionally with its
primitive assignments of affinities and aversions to everything.
Sitting in meditation, sitting with the present moment, just
as it is, we are reconciled and at home.
Reconciliation matters
because the consequence of not
reconciling is unending suffering.
Reconciliation is an internal event, something that comes
from within us. As such it is always available to us. And so is the peace and
well-being that arises from it.
External Reconciliation
It is one thing to reconcile oneself to what is happening in
one’s own life–that’s internal reconciliation. It is, as we all know, wholly
another thing to reconcile one’s differences with another person, which is
external reconciliation. When there are differences, we start by attempting to
find a mutual reconciliation. (If that doesn’t work, we can, of course, do it
alone.)
(1) Agreeing to disagree is not a solution. It moves nothing
forward and entrenches us in the validity of our story. (2) Compromising, which
is what nations do when they create treaties and accords, where we get as much
of what we wanted as circumstances will allow after battling it out, is not a
solution either, for it leaves us unsettled and unsatisfied and often in a
worse place than we started. (3) Just capitulating to another’s demands isn’t a
solution either, for it leaves us with frustration and residual anger and
reinforces ignorance rather than wisdom.
So, if we don’t want to suffer, we need to learn to
reconcile our differences with others. And this is complicated: the closer we
are to the other person and to the issue, the more difficult it is to see
clearly.
To reconcile our differences with another person, when there is a disagreement, we must
both rewrite the story in a way that leaves us both in harmony, both peaceful
with the conclusion, both feeling amicable and at ease. Reconciliation is never
about winning. It is, however, about trust.
Genuine reconciliation cannot be based simply on the desire
for harmony. Ideally, it requires a mutual understanding of what actions served
to create the disharmony, and a promise to try to avoid those actions in the
future. This in turn requires a clearly articulated agreement about–and
commitment to–mutual standards of right and wrong. At its heart, reconciliation
distinguishes, for both parties, between right and wrong ways of handling differences.
We need right and wrong, but we also need to be careful how
we use them. We need not to be capricious in our use of them, nor hypocritical.
The fact that all phenomena are empty doesn’t mean that there is no right and
wrong. We don't want to use the rhetoric of non-duality and non-attachment to
excuse genuinely harmful behavior–leaving victims hopelessly adrift, with no
commonly accepted standards on which to base redress through reconciliation.
Reconciliation is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is about
blame, makes me the ultimate judge; forgiveness is about winning. Forgiveness
is just one part rewriting a story to get our own way.
The solution lies not in abandoning right and wrong, but in
learning how to use them wisely. Here’s a checklist of questions for this:
Perceived Wrongdoings
When a perceived
wrongdoing is involved, we need to ask ourselves before confronting the
other person:
Am I seeing clearly what has happened?
Am I motivated by kindness and compassion to reconcile,
rather than a self-centered or self-serving need?
Really, am I trying to reconcile or trying to win, to get my
way?
Am I sincere and clear on our mutual standards?
Can my words be believed?
Ideally, we should be determined to speak only words that
are true, timely, gentle, to the point, and prompted by kindness.
Our motivation should be compassion, consideration for the
welfare of all parties involved, and the desire to see the wrongdoing end.
There should be an overriding desire to hold to principles of propriety.
When there is conflict, we should employ right speech and
engage in the honest, responsible self-reflection. In this way, standards of
right and wrong behavior, instead of being oppressive or petty, engender deep
and long-lasting trust. In addition to creating the external harmony, this
process of reconciliation also becomes an opportunity for inner growth.
Our goal should be always be willing to exercise the honesty
and restraint that reconciliation requires.
Disagreements
When there is a simple disagreement about an event, time or
place, for example, reconciliation is generally clearer than when “wrong doing”
is involved. Wrongdoing is a reflection of our very strong attachments to
beliefs and values; on the other hand, disagreements are less weighty conflicting
stories.
Because all stories are fictions, insisting on one’s story
over another’s story is arrogance, and arrogance is a no-no.
However, this would become nihilistic if there were no
evaluative criteria. That criterion is appropriateness (the neutral word for
the fundamental understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, as it arises
from meditation and interconnectedness). Appropriateness is obvious if one is
mindful and aware; it is the response that arises from wisdom.
Haven’t realized wisdom yet–fake it!
