The Face of Love

“Jesus gave me the message,” noted Martin Luther King, Jr., “Gandhi showed me the method.” He was referring, of course, to love as enacted through non~violence.

This theme was explored in a recent panel discussion at the University of Arkansas entitled "Turning Swords into Ploughshares: The Many Paths of Non~Violence.” The panelists were the Dalai Lama; Sister Helen Prejean, advocate against the death penalty featured in the film Dead Man Walking; and 80~year~old civil rights activist, Vincent Harding.

The Dalai Lama, in his broken English, began the discussion with what may seem a rather audacious statement. “I consider basic human nature is…gentleness.” Gentleness?!! What about survival of the fittest, aggression, and all the rest?

He supports his point by noting that since humans are born helpless and in need of care, the ability to bond is primary. He believes this points to “compassion, human affection,” as the core quality of the human species.

He goes on to reference continuing scientific evidence that emotions such as anger, fear and worry are harmful to the human organism, while love, forgiveness and kindness are conducive to health on all levels and, therefore, more in harmony with basic human wiring.

“The compassionate mind,” he concludes, “is very good for the society, very good for the family, very good for individual.”

Sister Helen Prejean spoke of witnessing convicted murderer Patrick Sonnier’s execution and choosing to be “a loving face” for him at the end. She also shared her hesitation to reach out to the families of those Sonnier had slain. When she did so, though, she was greeted not with the anger she had feared, but by a palpable relief.

Prejean quotes parent Lloyd LeBlanc as saying, “Sister, you can't believe the pressure on us to be for the death penalty, and I've had nobody to talk to. Where have you been?" She relates how this brave soul refused to give in to baser, though completely understandable, emotions. She shares LeBlanc’s words: “I didn't like the way it made me feel when I went to that place of hatred and bitterness…They killed our son, but I'm not going to let them kill me.”

Harding shared a similar story in the reactions of two friends to the bomb that killed 4 Sunday school children in Birmingham in 1961. Civil rights workers Diane Nash and James Bevel overrode an immediate urge for revenge and instead deepened their commitment to non~violence. Harding paraphrases them as saying, “We cannot copy that terrible path of violence. That is not who we are. That is not what we believe in…We must respond, but we must find another way.”

Non~violence is not a technique. It is not, in Gandhi’s words “…a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart and it must be an inseparable part of our being.” When we commit to transforming what King referred to as our “internal violence of the spirit,” a loving response becomes more accessible, no matter the situation.

My friend Val told of a mentally ill young man who was being loud and disruptive during a recent General Assembly (GA) meeting at Occupy Denver. “Five folks just gently stood by him,” Val shared in a recent email, “and, as a circle, slowly moved him outside of the larger circle, just listening to him. Since he had those 5 sets of ears, he just followed them.

“For an hour they listened to him rant,” she continued, “but well away from the group, so the GA could go on. After an hour, he calmed down and walked away.”

How very beautiful! To listen with kind attention to the cursing tirades of a wounded soul is not a tactic. That kind of response comes from the heart. It is non~violence in action, love made manifest.

And yet non~violence may be only the beginning. In Harding’s words, “I'm deeply convinced now even more than I was then, that when we…commit ourselves to the building of humanity, then all kinds of forces…become available to us, and we are able to do much more than we ever dreamed.”

So let us love one another as Jesus instructed, and let us do so within the commonplace events and muck of human life. In the process, we just might find ourselves part of something much larger~~the healing of a world.

With love,

Loanne Marie

You can view the panel discussion in its entirety here.

And here’s a transcript, if that works better for you.

Meditation Myths and Half Truths #4

Myth # 4: There is one correct way to meditate.

Nope! There are numerous styles of meditation, including some that represent quite a stretch in the traditional meaning of the term. I suspect that folks new to meditation would do well to begin with a rather broad definition, trusting that refinement will naturally occur as practice deepens.

The broadest view I can conceive is this: meditation is the conscious gift of one’s complete attention to an activity. In this sweeping notion, any activity can be done meditatively. This is, in fact, a view shared by many schools of meditation and gives rise to various manifestations of the adage, ‘When you walk, walk; when you sit, sit; when you eat, eat’--and so on. To engage in the act before you with complete focus brings an immediacy to any experience. It also runs counter to the way many of us spend our lives--multitasking, rushing from one thing to another, never fully here since so much of our attention is held by the past or called to the future. We all too frequently are divided within ourselves, and thus separated from an authentic and intimate experience of the world.

With this broad view of meditation, anyone can begin right now to deepen their experience of life. It doesn’t require fancy technique, special training, or specific commitments of time. I once read of a woman lamenting to her mentor that, as a single mother of young children, she just couldn’t find the time to meditate. Her teacher asked what one activity she did most frequently. They then went to the sink and together washed each dish and utensil with full attention. Diapering, playing, rocking, feeding, even limit-setting--all the activities of parenting can be done more fully or less fully, with more or less awareness and presence. Likewise, one can drive, converse, work, walk the dog, make love, read, plan for the future or reminisce about the past with a meditative awareness.

But many of us find that a specific meditation practice allows us to best develop the skill to engage all areas of our lives with more immediacy. And so, the beginning broad definition seeks refinement. While we begin with the giving of our complete focus, to what do we give it in order to best cultivate this aptitude? And precisely how?

There are several answers to this question offered by the various schools of meditation, with many subsets within each one, and quite a bit of overlap between them. You may be encouraged to focus on one or more of the following: your breath, either natural or controlled; a sacred word, phrase, text, idea, object, or image; energy centers within the body; simple or complex visualizations; sounds; observing thoughts and sensations that arise. Some schools take a decidedly devotional bent while others may seem rather cerebral. Technique can be complex or simple. One may walk, sit, take particular postures, or dance; chant or be silent; use prayer beads or rosaries; practice alone or in groups. You may be encouraged toward total absorption or complete detachment. There are forms that rely on a deep bond between teacher and student, and ones that downplay such relationships, encouraging individuals to experiment with teachings to find what works for them. In other words, there is something for us all.

I think this last point is essential. We are not all the same, so why should the style of meditation that works for one person be a perfect fit for another? I suspect many folks find a first attempt ill-fitting and, not realizing the plethora of meditation flavors available, abandon the practice all together. This common misconception of a one-size-fits-all meditative approach is, I think, unwittingly furthered by meditation teachers who speak or write as though their own teaching is the only one, when it is simply what has worked for them.

There is, indeed, a style of meditation for any temperament, as well as modifications of each that can tailor it further to a particular nature. If you are interested in pursuing meditation, investigate various schools. Take classes, read books, listen to tapes, search the web, go on retreat.  Notice when something resonates. Then, experiment.

And relax! Cultivate a spirit of curiosity. Follow your own intuitive urgings. This is your life, your journey. Trust that if you feel called to meditation, a fruitful direction will appear. When something resonates, cultivate it so that it will bear a luscious fruit.

The simple truth I find in this particular myth is that, ultimately, any meditative approach will bring us the same gifts: a loving acceptance of what is, a connection to all that is, and an awareness of the sacred within both the small and large moments of our lives.

I am reminded of somthing I heard the Dalai Lama say in an interview years ago. “If it brings good heart, is good religion; if it does not bring good heart, is not good religion.” For the purpose of our discussion here, I think the following modification works well: “If it brings good heart, is good meditation.” In that way, there is only one correct way to meditate--the way that brings you good heart.

May you find your own good heart throughout the coming week.

Namaste!

Loanne Marie

PS. For other Meditation Myths and Half-Truths in this series, please click on Myth #1, Myth #2, and Myth #3.  I'd love to hear about your experiences!