(This is Part 21 of a series. Go back to Part 20.)
The above are examples of the larger principle of turning on a light instead of fighting the darkness.
Imagine that we're in a dark room, stumbling over the furniture. We can curse it and try to "fight the darkness." But ultimately, "fighting darkness" is a futile business, because darkness is simply an absence of light. How to defeat an absence? We may win temporary "victories" here and there, but in the end we just wind up exhaused.
"Hatred never ceases by hatred," the Buddha said. "Hatred only ceases by love."
Vastly more effective in the end, and vastly less tragic, is to turn on a light instead of "fighting darkness." When we turn on a light there is no longer any need to "fight the darkness." The darkness vanishes as a simple by-product of increased light.
Thus our real challenge as humans is to find a way to add increased light to the situations that challenge us. Gandhi and Martin Luther King found a way. But their solutions are not the only solutions. Each situation can call forth its own unique way of turning on a light if we can listen carefully enough to hear the heart's inner guidance.
Oftentimes this can involve greater understanding. As an example, if the West limits itself to "fighting terrorism" my guess is that we'll never defeat it. Because guns and planes and tanks are not really the right weapons for fighting indigenous guerilla movements.
What we call "terrorism" almost always arises out of a sense of deep anger and injustice.
Take Palestinian suicide bombers. From Israel's point of view, it seems simply insane that someone would choose to blow up himself and innocent civilians. But from the Palestinian point of view, suicide bombers are the only weapon left to counter Israel's encroaching settlements and overpowering military force.
From a military point of view, a guerilla movement—one manifestation of which we call "terrorism"—is the correct response to an enemy who has overwhelming military superiority.
When confronted with terrorism, how much more difficult it would be—though in the end perhaps much more fruitful—to look into the disease itself rather than the symptoms of the disease.
Terrorism is not a disease; it is a symptom of a disease. That is why "fighting" it through military means will almost certainly prove at best exhausting. Because when we "fight terrorism" we are fighting the symptom instead of the disease. This ultimately works no better in human conflict than it does in medicine.
Just as an example, how much more difficult it would be for the Israelis to take a deep look at the suffering of the Palestinians—a people displaced from their home, living in refuge camps for two generations, suppressed by an occupying power, living in a collapsed economy.
This is not to diminish the anxiety and insecurity and real tragedy that Israel is experiencing from suicide bombers. But, as an example, let's talk about a solution that might actually work instead of perpetuating endlessly a scenario of two taratulas fighting to the death in a bottle.
Both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, are failing to understand the suffering of the other. But Israel has more power in the situaion, so as an example let's talk about what she could do.
What would happen if Israel ceased her occupation of the Palestinian territories and pulled back to the pre-1971 borders? What would happen if, further, she extended a helping hand to the Palestinians, helping them rebuild their infrastructure and rebuild their economy?
The Palestinians are probably more closely related to the Israelis than any other people on earth. The Palestinians by blood are probably Israel's closest relations—their natural brothers and sisters.
What would happen if Israel began to look at it that way? What would happen if Israel began to understand the deep anger of the Palestinians at being displaced and occupied?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm simply discussing potential solutions that might address the cause rather than attack the symptom.
The Palestinians could do something similar, in beginning to express and act upon an understanding of the fear and insecurities—grounded in milleniums of occupation by often-brutal foreign powers—that the Jewish people feel as they cling to their precarious homeland.
But this is just an example. The more general principle, which is applicable anywhere, is to find or create some way, in a challenging situation, to turn on a light instead of fighting the darkness.
Then war, in all its tragedy and self-righteousness, may no longer need a place on our precious and lovely planet. And perhaps we can truly begin to "love one another," as Jesus counseled us to do.
(This is the end of Part 21. Go to Part 22.)
—jim sloman, 9.30.03 for 11.23.04
|
