Depth

In one of my Buddhism classes this semester we talked about "having" versus "being"... living with depth instead of grasping superficiality.

Having is something we certainly understand- the striving for THINGS, for material success, for envy producing social position with all its accouterments. We may not approve, but we understand. We all, at some point, want to have.

It's not just objects we want (though our wanting may objectify). We want to have jobs, and significant others, and blogs, and stability, and great sex, and so on.... and we want to be wanted, work hard to make ourselves desirable. For the job market and the dating process we objectify ourselves, aiming to be more valuable so that we can attain what we, in turn, value. Our lives are driven by this grasping desire.

Ick.

"Being" is a more difficult concept. We're not quite sure what that means. At least, I'm not quite sure (I shouldn't speak for everyone else). This is why weekend retreats and enlightenment seeking workshops often don't work- you can't just acquire inner peace, or a greater connection with the rest of the universe, or compassion... You cannot, ultimately, buy spirituality or a true religious experience- adrenaline, yes, and fun times, luxury and knowledge and pretty religious artifacts. Are those really what matter to us?

Capitalism and living deeply are not terribly compatible, and when time is money it's hard to make space in our lives to "be". Time, after all, is something we "have" and are often unwilling to give up. But working on "being", on living deeply, is what I'm here to do.

So how do I go about being more instead of having more? This is what my call is, at some level, about. To serve others as I hope to I need to be more. Not to say I don't also need to acquire more knowledge and experience- that's the easy, if expensive, part. What I need to BE is more difficult. Confident, for example.

Whatever television commercials tell us, you can't buy confidence. Nice clothes, maybe, but I don't want to be a fraud of a minister- I want to be authentic.

Authentic. Honest. Humble. Confident. Empathetic. Wise. Mature. Full of...

Good Karma.

I want to be a good person who helps other people to be good and do good things. I want to create change, and to do that I need to change myself. You know, that whole Gandhi thing about being the change you want to see in the world- as a seminary student I am beginning to understand what that truly means. It isn't about avoiding charges of hypocrisy.

It is about working from a place of authenticity- being true to yourself, after having worked to shape a self one can create good from. It's not about being a saint.

If anything, it's about being in touch with our humanity, knowing the painful parts of ourselves, and keeping a sense of humor about the whole mess of human existence. Self-righteous, pompous, sanctimonious, holier- than- thou condescension is not useful and does absolutely no good to anyone.

I want to be useful.

Not annoying.

All of this is building up to say...

In my heart of hearts what I strive to be most is loving.

Love is what I care most deeply about. What I strive for.

It can't be purchased, or stolen, or collected like vintage kitchen utensils.

We don't fully understand it, we can't control it, and the best way to increase the amount of it in our lives is to give it away.

There are a lot of obvious things I am saying here.

You can't make anyone love you.

And when what you care about is someone else loving you, you're probably worrying more about your ego then romance.

Ahhh romance.

Another thing we want to have.

This is something I question in myself.

Do I want to "be in relationship" or have a relationship? Have a girlfriend or be a partner?

It sounds like semantics, perhaps, but I find myself wincing at the term "my girlfriend", and not just because my significant other is genderqueer. We are dating, which is a verb, we are in a relationship together, which is a condition composed of trust and hope and communication and loyalty and affection. How do I say this simply and honestly without claiming her?

I do not seek to own another human being. Is there another way of saying "this person and I are together" that does not smack of ownership? Of grasping, clinging, ego-driven desire?

Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of healthy human bodily desire here, which I think is groovy and am not in the least bit ashamed of or worried about. Wanting to be with her is something I am totally jazzed about, and the fact that she wants to be with me is way beyond awesome. This is not a statement against sexuality. I am not, nor will I ever be, a nun.

(though I hope to do interfaith work with nuns at some point, there are some Catholic sisters out there doing amazing work).

Nor is this a statement of commitment-phobia.

This is, I think, a question about ego. And language. And cultural expectations around romantic attachment.

It is a question about "being" versus "having".

And maybe it's about being loving rather than having fear.

.

Maybe it really is that simple.

Bucket List!

So, in a fit of procrastination, I have decided to post some of my vacation goals- things I daydream of doing and places I'd particularly like to go.

I want to....

1. Go sea kayaking with otters (and visit Monterey aquarium).

2. Hike the Chilkoot (and spend more time in Skagway)!

3. Ice skate on a natural pond (in the mountains!)

4. Hike to the top of a mountain and kiss significant other at the summit.

5. Ride a horse on the beach.

6. Go hang gliding in Kitty Hawk.

7. Visit Acadia National Park.

8. See Venice before it sinks.

9. Sleep overnight in a castle.

10. Visit the places in Wales that Bryn Mawr College buildings are named after.

11. ISLE OF LESBOS!

anger poisoning

I bet you've heard of the concept of being poisoned by anger. I'm sure we've all found times in our lives when we gave in to pettiness- let our need to be right triumph over what actually mattered.

And how do we determine what really matters, anyway? Living life for the small things is a concept I believe in whole heartedly, yet I know for sure that being angry about the ways others have thoughtlessly hurt one is self-destructive. Getting angry at thoughtlessness is like getting angry at large concrete walls. In fact, it feels a bit like banging one's head against a large concrete wall, and the results are pretty similar.

I believe in forgiveness, too, but how do you forgive thoughtlessness? It's like forgiving an earthquake. Or a war, more like. I don't know that I think wars are forgiveable things.

So where does that leave us? Soul poisoned, and cranky besides. "You do what you have to, I'm out." may be easy to say, but do we ever really walk away from something that's hurt us this way? How do we let go of this poisonous anger? Just because it may be petty (logically) doesn't mean it isn't real, after all. No matter how righteous we may feel, there's always some self-anger mixed in with these small-important-non-forgiveable things. A feeling of failure is there, yes? Anger, after all, is fear morphed into something dangerous, and failure is pretty terrifying.

If that seems like a knotty negative mess, it is. And my only answer is far too corny to type.

To be an ally

Wake, now, my conscience,
with justice thy guide;
join with all people
whose rights are denied;
take not for granted
a privileged place;
God's love embraces
the whole human race.

- Thomas J.S. Mikelson, "Wake Now My Senses"

This verse of a hymn struck me this morning as a rather beautiful verbalization of what I believe about allies. By that, of course, I do not mean the winners of the world wars or the nations who formed NATO, but those who use their privilege to help those who are dis-privileged.

Allies are important and what they do is hard. When you stand with those on the painful side of structural violence prejudice tends to reflect onto you. Those who are being repressed tend to be rather suspicious of outsiders. It's not always clear what the "right thing" to do is, and there's sure to be disagreements between those working for change. Trust is a tricky thing, and understanding... well, who can really understand what anyone else goes through?

Maybe this is part of the reason why I love the Marcos view of things. No one should be shamed or prosecuted for being different, and all those who find themselves otherized should stand together. This Zapatista view means we can be allies for each other- after all, we're all different somehow, right? So as a white person I act as an ally with those who face structural violence because of the color of their skin or their national origin. As someone whose gender identity matches the legal gender status she was born into in an fairly uncomplicated way I recognize my privilege in relation to those whose gender expression or identity may be more subject to prejudice (of course I am still a relatively feminine woman in a sexist world, and that sometimes bites). As someone with a degree of economic freedom I must be aware of the issues of poverty. As someone who identifies as queer, I am wholly aware of the need for straight allies, even as I reject that whole repressive gay/straight polarization.

Did that read as messy? Well, my thinking on this gets pretty messy when I start thinking about questions of identity. I could write books about that, and I doubt you'd want to read so much just now.

In a memo stating the Zapatista's solidarity with LGBTQ peoples, Marcos said, "Let those who persecute the different be ashamed!"

I guess I would add to that the idea that those who truly believe in equality must be willing to exchange privilige for rights. Allies are those who see that what should be rights for all have become privileges, and that they are reaping the benefits of those privileges to the disadvantage of others. That's not an easy thing. This line of thought requires something that may be called guilt, and certainly requires a willingness to take responsibility.

Take responsibility. Be an ally. Be an agent for hope, not a part of the prosecution, part of the system that's oppressing some to the benefits of others. By remaining passive, by NOT taking responsibility, you are supporting oppression. I know that's true, however self-righteous and unhelpful it may sound.

And to support this, I'll throw in a poem. Glenn Beck be darned.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

- Martin Niemoller

Oh yeah, here's that link to the memo from Marcos.

Evil

Another question the YARs are focusing on right now is the definition of evil. My knee jerk, immediate reaction to the question "what is evil" is "WALMART".

I have said in the past that I believe Walmart is the epitome of modern evil.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike this corporation- they don't pay their workers a fair wage or treat them well, they're homophobic, their stores are huge and terrifyingly seductive, they drive nice American businesses out of business, they're about as environmentally destructive as it's possible for a retail operation to be... I could go on and on. Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most is that all Walmart exists for is to create profit- the organization just doesn't care about anything else. It worries me to see so much economic power in the hands of people who will do anything, no matter how destructive to our interconnected world, to make money. And I feel like no one wants to stand up to them because... well, they sell things for cheap. My libertarian friends believe that if Walmart was really doing anything bad people would stop shopping there. My non-libertarian friends think that if Walmart was really doing anything bad the government would stop them. When I say I boycott Walmart, most everyone looks at me like I'm nuts.

Every time I buy something from Walmart, every time I step through that door, I feel like I've given up a piece of my soul. I feel dirty, and used, and ashamed.

I want to say Walmart is a subtle evil, since labeling a retail chain evil seems a bit extreme, but it doesn't seem particularly subtle to me.

I have a very Quaker idea of the nature of good and evil, after all. Good is listening to our inner light- doing what's right even when it's difficult or uncomfortable or unpopular. Good is about thinking deeply about the effects of what we do, paying attention to how things are connected and who benefits from any particular course of action... respecting the earth, honoring our fellow human beings, creating justice. Evil is giving in to what's easy, to power structures and economic pressures and what's socially acceptable. I don't think wealth is necessarily evil, but I don't think it's particularly noble... or worth giving up my values for.

Guilt

Something we've been grappling with (by "we" I mean the Young Adult Residents at the Mountain) is the question of guilt. My first reaction to the question of whether or not there is a place for guilt is "NO!". It's negative and manipulative and dis-empowering and generally not helpful, right? The idea that I'd ever try to make someone else feel guilty is horrific- I'm not particularly keen on the idea of making people feel crappy. Even if feeling guilt can move people to action, I'm not entirely certain that the end justifies the means.

Yet I wonder. What are we saying when we accuse people of trying to make us feel guilty? Are we sometimes denying responsibility because we don't want to have to face up to something? Specifically, the YARs have been talking a lot about privilege- white privilege, gendered privilege, class privilege, etc. We agree that some things are privileges that should be rights- like marriage, and access to decent healthcare and education.

Because of my background in anti-racism training I believe that what defines an ally is the willingness to question and give up privilege. I don't think being an ally has anything to do with being safe or comfortable or "politically correct" (gods I hate that term), but about doing what's right and facing the consequences.

You can only feel guilty, after all, if you aren't willing or able to DO anything. I don't want anyone to feel guilty, I want people to acknowledge responsibility. We are ALL responsible for systems of structural violence, like racism, and the right thing to do is to help dismantle those systems. Part of white privilege is the fact that as pale skinned people we don't see how much racism benefits us- we don't see the flip side of it, don't see that the things we take for granted aren't rights but privileges that can be taken away. Homophobia and racism and all the rest hurt ALL of us because when something that should be a right becomes a privilege it becomes something that can be used to threaten us.

That quote about no one being able to make you feel inferior without your consent can be expanded. Guilt is something you do to YOURSELF. Don't feel guilty, DO something. Take responsibility. Acknowledge injustice. Be a hero- don't let that right become a privilege. Don't deny unfairness just because it makes you uncomfortable or because it's easier just to let your privilege work for you. Be brave, for positive change takes courage. Give up being defensive, because that isn't helping anyone.