My good friend NS told me once: Everybody "means well".
It's so obvious, but it was also one of my biggest blind spots.
Ya'see... I naturally want to help people. (As RJ tells me, even people who don't want my help!) And, so, I will go out of my way to give. And also go out of my way to trust people. I've loaned people money. I've given people a place to stay. Partly, it's because I think they mean well and are working on good things. And I want to help.
There is no problem in wanting to help. And, in a way, that is a good antidote to stinginess. But, the issue was that it wasn't helpful. I believed that they would pay me back. Or that they would make efforts to change their situation (like get a job). Or, when we agree to some course of action, that they would follow it. In many cases, they don't. They just wanted someone to enable them further. There was no growth.
So, that brings us back to the conundrum: everybody means well. They have a good reason for not following through. It's not their fault. It's not like it is in the movies: where they are just a liar and deserve to be castigated/never-trusted-again. Real life is full of a lot more ambiguity. And, ambiguity patterns are painful, and people don't go to the movies to be reminded of the messiness of life. We wouldn't go see a movie of someone navigating a bureaucracy, full of paperwork, everybody meaning well. And then, via small let-downs and disconnects, troubles snowball into despair. We like a villain, i.e. someone who doesn't mean well. But, in real life, nearly everybody means well.
In some ways, this is one of the giant problems of society. You can have a situation where everybody means well. Everyone is doing something that has some (often tiny) positives. And everything overall is still very messed up. Within your tribe: maybe nobody is deliberately mean, nobody is malevolent, and nobody wants to throws the first punch. But meanness still results, and malevolent feelings are given actions, and someone throws the first punch (out of self-defense, of course, because they mean well), and then all the other punches are justified, and, or course, everybody means well.
NS also has discussed with me another great phrase, "People are doing they best they can". This needs some disambiguation/explanation. They are doing the best they can, and they can do better. I think Suzuki Roshi has a saying that "People are perfect exactly as they are. And they can be a little bit better." So, with learning and training, people can clean up their actions, speech, and thought patterns. But, they are doing the best they can in that they are doing the best they can given their current context, learning, and training. Put another way, I have deepened my compassion practice by repeating the phrase, "If I had their context and conditions, I would probably be doing the same things." This is a good antidote to my knee-jerk reaction that "others" (verb) other people, telling myself a story that they are dumb and should make better decisions. Karma is cause and effect. If I had the same causes, I would have the same effect. Ergo, in their shoes+skin, I would do that same things.
What are the implications of "everybody means well"? In interpersonal situations, it means that a person's trustworthiness has very little to do with the binary "do they or do they not mean well". That's because everybody means well. Everyone has a justification (supportive word) or excuse (dismissive word). So, it's meaningless that they meant well.
What does matter is their track record of their intentions and results and learning from mistakes. It's not binary. It's descriptive of their process.
- Intentions refers to the storyline of "them meaning well". Is their story filled with greed? Is it filled with anger? How much? Is it filled with wishful thinking, especially of the form "I had no idea that Y would result from X"? Is their story filled with heedfulness? Is it filled with trying to take everyone into account? (E.g., "know your wake"). Is it filled with a story of enough or not-enough? Howso? Is it filled with right-wrong thinking? Is it filled with focusing on the helpfulness/skillfulness?
- Often, the story is just, "I did X to get Y". Or "I don't know why. I guess I was {emotion, like scared}." Not a complex story. But also not a story where they "looked both ways before crossing the street."
- Results refers to the impacts of what they did in 4 ways: {to themselves, to others} X {short run, long-run}. Are they narrow minded in their results? If there is 1 positive and 10 negatives, do they just see the positive? Are their glasses of perspective tinted with self-serving bias in looking at their outcomes? (Similarly, if there are 10 positives and 1 negative, do they just see the negative? (Thanks KD <bird poop>!)
- A tell-tale sign is: Good results ==> "I'm awesome". Bad Results ==> "Blame others".
- Learning from mistakes means what steps they take to not repeat a mistake they made. First, are they repeating the same mistake over and over? Second, are they repeating the same mistake over and over? Third, what strategies do they implement to ensure that they don't just make the same mistake over and over? ("just" because making the same mistake over and over again is okay, reasonable, some people are stuck. But don't just repeat. Learn!) In particular, can they see the patterns (in the outside world or in their own mind <bird poop, inside joke>) that lead to and cause the mistake? If so, what pattern breakers can they use.
There is a separate question of when to "trust" or engage with someone else. We've already established that people "meaning well" isn't good enough, partly because everyone means well within their own context/moral system. There is no universal strategy. It could be said that one should engage when one feels it's beneficial. That beneficial has some bite, or at least appears to. But that's a tautology, of sorts, where everything fits. That's because beneficial can be defined 100 different ways by 100 different people. "Winning at all costs" is defined as beneficial for some people. And "Playing the honest and right way" is defined as beneficial for other people. So, like Buddhism itself, the answer is conditional. It depends greatly on what you define as beneficial.
Buddhism doesn't say you have to do the 4 Noble Truths. It's not a commandment. Instead, it says, "if you want to end suffering (beneficial defined), completely, then the 4 Noble Truths is the only way." That is a strong statement, but also a conditional one. Like in Mission Impossible... "Your mission, if you choose to accept it...".
How I want to go beyond seeing if people "mean well".
For me, the conditional answer of who to trust is personal and has the condition: "How do I learn and grow, and how do I help others learn and grow?" Similarly, "How do I move away from GAD (greed-anger-delusion), and how do I move towards release from GAD?" So, with that framework/premise, I'm not looking for pleasure or a life partner or money or social climbing. I'm looking for something else.
The answer relates to the Rahula Sutta. I want people who are reflective, observant, and heedful.
- Their intentions have open eyes. They strive to not have blind spots, as much as they can. For me, they have to be aware of GAD at some level.
- Even a Christian approach to GAD is fine. That's the most common approach in the USA. I'm (trying to be) non-sectarian, and I think that's important to limit my own GAD. Sectarianism is a form of GAD.
- Their results can be positive or negative or a big mix. (outcomes are overrated when working on knowing oneself). But I want them to see their outcomes clearly. Without blindspots. Without "smash".
- Their learning from mistakes moves in the right direction. Mistakes aren't just repeated "spinning". They give a damn about not repeating the same mistakes. But they also don't force it. Forcing it can create its own problems.
And how many sympatico people are there? What's the ratio? I think the people I really want to meet, who are reflective, observant, and heedful... I think that is between 0.1% and 5% of the population, with 1% being most likely. So in a town with 250,000 people, maybe 250-12500 people. With 2500 being the most likely.
Put another way: Suppose I meet about 1000 people. If I do, I'll probably meet 1 to 50 people I "grok" with, and most likely 10.
---
Thanks NS.
---
See also: Dabbling
No comments:
Post a Comment