Opposing forces are constantly in dynamic motion, striving for balance and harmony.
When
99.99% of human beings all desire the same things (to live peacefully,
feed their families and enjoy life's abundance), it is no longer enough
for us to simply strive for peace.
In these challenging times, we need to transform the entire dance of creation and destruction.
I
was in an interesting conversation recently about how we can interact
with people who hold different beliefs than ours. The question posed
was, “How can one be with someone whose beliefs are the antithesis of
our own?” An important inquiry to engage in, considering that a clash
of beliefs is at the heart of most conflict and strife between people.
Responses
from the group varied from escape (“We can’t be with them at all, so we
leave”) and avoidance (“We can’t be with them, so we avoid them”) to
pity (“The only way we can be with them is to think how sad it is that
they hold their beliefs”), and curiosity and compassion (“We can be
with them by observing their thoughts and relating to their essential
humanness”). Many in the conversation found it difficult to move beyond
pity. And yet, even pity is insufficient to resolve a conflict. For one
who pities still sees themselves as being ‘more’ or ‘better’ than those
they pity.
When we pity, what remains unspoken is sensed and
colors the relationship. I worked for a manager once whom I pitied, and
that contributed to increased antagonism between us—for it didn’t
create an opening for us to discuss what we shared in common and what
we both considered to be our birthright as humans. Basic things, such
as:
• Access to education and meaningful work • Freedom of expression • Safe places in which to live, raise children and grow old, and • Access to sufficient resources (food, water, shelter, medical care) to be healthy.
We
clung to our beliefs as if they were what we knew to be ‘truth’.
Unfortunately, the relationship deteriorated and I chose to leave the
organization. I found out years later that she had eventually left
shortly thereafter. Neither of us got to have a conversation about what
we really cared about, because we were entrenched in our positions
about ‘what was so’.
One of my friends once pointed out to me
that, for them, beliefs are not knowledge. That seemed to me to be
self-evident at the time, but in l my recent conversation about
beliefs, I became aware that many confuse their lives by equating
beliefs with knowledge. Yet, it seems to me that when we collapse what
we hold to be ‘truth’ (our beliefs) onto what we think we ‘know’, we
shut down any possibility of anything else being ‘true’. When we cling
to what we believe and know as ‘truth’, then we destroy all chances for
peace.
According to leaders like the Dalai Lama, true
reconciliation (and perhaps the only peaceful way through the world of
differences we inhabit) is available to us through wholehearted
compassion. When we can see and interact with others as human Beings
(as individual souls having human experiences) instead of as a
maelstrom of beliefs, then perhaps we can begin to live together
peacefully. I’m certainly not advocating that we condone behaviors and
actions that destroy life in any way. However, setting ourselves up as
better than another because of what we believe is a covert form of
resisting their beliefs.
Perhaps what underlies our
difficulties as a species is a belief that it is not possible to
fulfill everyone’s birthright to the basic elements of life. This type
of thinking contributes to our disagreements over resources and rights
and creates the so-called battle between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have
nots’.
What if … we individually and collectively choose another belief?
What if … we see the world as being sufficient for all our needs—as long as we respect each other and the planet?
What if … we see it as our responsibility to each other and to future generations to base all our actions in this belief?
What if … we focus on collaborating instead of resisting each other?
Perhaps
we could develop a whole new set of beliefs from this—beliefs that
support and serve our collective future and the future of our world.
By Shae Hadden | BioSpring
flowers bloom passionately on this sunny West Coast day, birds are
preparing nests for their young and people run madly by me as I sit by
the ocean and ponder what it takes to survive in these times. My search
for a place to live has not yet been entirely successful, and the
conversations I’ve had reveal both desperation and gnawing hesitation
in myself and others to actually put a stake in the
ground—metaphorically speaking—and declare that this is the future we
are committing to. It’s almost as if[Read More]
By Shae Hadden | Bio
I
haven’t lived through the Depression, or participated in a major global
conflict. Compared to many people on this planet, I haven’t had a lot
of difficulties in my life. But the challenges that I have faced I have
been able to survive. If you’d asked me a year ago what made that
possible, I would probably have said “sheer will power”. But I’m a
little older and a little wiser now. And my answer today has a quality
of serenity in it that wasn’t evident back then. Viewing the
future as[Read More]
Despite
my intentions to stay focused on launching new materials into the
world, the last couple of weeks have seen a flurry of activity around
forming partnerships. When I look at the very real challenges we are
facing today and the urgency with which they need to be addressed,
establishing relationships might seem like the last thing we should
spend time doing. However, I’m reminded of something Jim Selman often
says: “Relationships are the foundation of success.”
It’s
so easy to get ‘comfortable’ with the circumstances of our lives—even
when they are uncomfortable or when we can see that they may very
likely lead to discomfort. It’s almost natural, sometimes even
expected, that we complain about what’s ‘not right’ or ‘not perfect’ in
our lives. But complaining (to ourselves or others) doesn’t change
anything and we’re left ‘adapting’ ourselves to living with whatever is
contributing to our discomfort.
By Shae Hadden BioIn a recent conversation with my sisters, I was reminded that people
don’t necessarily have to agree with the how, why or when of a
particular possibility. But they do have to be aligned on the ‘who’ and
the ‘what’ in order to move forward together—and the ‘who’ has to
include a commitment from each person involved to the possibility of
the ‘what’. In fact, disagreeing with the specifics of how to create a
possibility adds value to the conversation and can inform and, in many
cases, contribute to the success of the venture—whether it is the
creation of something intangible (like a relationship) or tangible
(like a product, project or organization). For
most, agreement occurs when one person surrenders their point of view
to accept another point of view.[Read More]
By Shae Hadden BioIn a recent conversation with my sisters, I was reminded that people
don’t necessarily have to agree with the how, why or when of a
particular possibility. But they do have to be aligned on the ‘who’ and
the ‘what’ in order to move forward together—and the ‘who’ has to
include a commitment from each person involved to the possibility of
the ‘what’. In fact, disagreeing with the specifics of how to create a
possibility adds value to the conversation and can inform and, in many
cases, contribute to the success of the venture—whether it is the
creation of something intangible (like a relationship) or tangible
(like a product, project or organization). For
most, agreement occurs when one person surrenders their point of view
to accept another point of view. Essentially, one perspective wins, the
other loses, within the context of agreement. An example: in
negotiations, the struggle for power is a struggle between perspectives
that has the winner take the dominant position at the head of the
table. Agreement is an either/or proposition. It does not allow space
for collaboration, respect or trust.[Read More]
By Shae Hadden BioI’m pondering this throw-away comment, something I’ve heard countless times before and never really thought about. What do we really mean when we say someone isn’t ‘acting their age’? In
effect, we’re judging whether their actions are ‘normal’ and
‘acceptable’—as compared to the majority of people of that same
chronological age in our society. But our assessments are neither true,
nor false. They are simply our perspective, our evaluation, of what we
perceive.[Read More]
By Shae Hadden | 
By Shae Hadden | 
RSS Feeds
