Liberata made an interesting point in a comment to an earlier post in which Karen Armstrong was quoted as saying that the “Other” can be a source of transcendence. Armstrong noted that the word “holy” in Hebrew means “Other.” Liberata recollected the words of a professor who said that when we think of God as being holy, we should think of “wholly other.”
She linked this with an observation about a pair of dueling posters that make an appearance every Saturday at a peace vigil she attends and that constitute and excellent example of two possible attitudes toward the Other.
I’ve stood on “our side” of the street holding a sign that reads: “God bless the whole world–no exceptions,” while directly across from me, a member of the pro-victory group (as they prefer to be called) holds a sign that reads: “God bless America — USA, #1!”
This reminded me of something David Brazier had written -
Many Buddhist teachers have affirmed that cherishing others is the root of all spiritual accomplishments. For the person who cherishes others, all realisations of wisdom and spiritual stages come easily, naturally and almost unnoticed, just as a person swimming does not notice that the water no longer feels as cold as when they first entered it. It is because we do not have the faith to cherish others that we remain trapped in affliction, like the shivering child clinging to the side of the swimming pool envying those who are enjoying the water having had the faith to let go of the rail and swim.
Due to our self-cherishing mind we develop a strong desire to secure our own welfare, but to do this we sometimes have to engage in unwholesome actions which cause us to experience suffering and dissatisfaction. In this way, all our problems, external and internal, arise directly or indirectly from our attitude of self-cherishing. In his Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life, Shantideva said that every single suffering that is experienced in this world arises as a result of self-cherishing.
The idea of cherishing others has a particularly strong resonance in Pureland Buddhism because of the importance attributed to the recognition of “otherness”. The other has independence from self and has his or her own dignity. In recognising this we acknowledge our own limitation.
Recognition of the separateness of the other is an important step toward diminishing self-conceit which is the main obstacle to faith. The other is not cherished as an extension of self. To cherishing the other who is truly recognised as other is real generosity and is liberty. It is a truly voluntary act, whereas to cherish another because one imagine’s them to be in some sense a part, an extension, a reflection, or a function of oneself is not a truly generous act for it is tinged with self-interest. To cherish other as other is a fully spiritual act.
Brazier concludes that the “other”, in their otherness, remains a mystery and that the whole of Amidist (i.e. Pureland) spirituality consists in standing in a spiritually naked condition before the great all enfolding mystery. To cherish another being is spiritually identical to sitting at the foot of the Buddha, recognising that “I am not That”. Each other is thus for the practitioner an instance of Amida Buddha. It does not matter whether the other is benevolent or persecutory. Just as Devadatta was Shakyamuni’s greatest teacher, so all beings who are respected in full otherness and cherished become our spiritual guide.
Who was your spiritual guide today?
Each other is thus for the practitioner an instance of Amida Buddha. It does not matter whether the other is benevolent or persecutory.
Since both my spiritual contemplation and practice seem inextricably linked to the peace & justice scene these days, and since the latter is inexorably linked to political activism, the above quote brought back to me the crux of something I struggle with constantly. In politics it’s rare to see compassion practiced toward the other, even when the other is not an immediate threat –let alone when the other is seen as threatening or “persecutory.” This is what makes peace and justice activism so discouraging, I think. We’re expecting career politicians to take risks being compassionate, when compassion is just not part of the normal political modus operandi.
This is a bit rambling, but the idea of openness (sort of a step toward love, I suppose) toward the other kept echoing in my head as I read the long essay by Rabbi Michael Lerner of the Tikkun Community (and of Tikkun Magazine) on the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel:
http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20080506071150620
or
http://tinyurl.com/3wmvlr
All through his review of Israel’s history, he puts his finger on situations where either Israelis or Palestinians could have shown openness or a willingness to risk trusting the other instead of coming down hard on the other.
Strangely (I think), Rabbi Lerner’s essay rests on a premise of mass diagnosis of both sides. He finds that both Israelis and Palestinians are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, which keeps each side locked in a process of making decisions that seem good for its best interests in the short-run but are really damaging in the long-run.
Well…I guess I’ve really digressed from the topic of loving the other. But each of those might-have-beens in Israel/Palestinian history leads me to conclude that openness toward the other is so hard when it comes to politics, which even when operating at its most generous best, seems to come down to: “something for you and something for me (with a hidden agenda for getting a little extra for me).”
–Liberata
Thanks for this.
It echoes a point made in the third Quaker Quest meeting I recently attended – Quakers and peace. One speaker spoke of her involvement in the “peace” movement in the eighties against nuclear weapon deployment within the UK. She spoke of the anger and frustrations of these protests; the “us and them” mentality that ensued. (I can recognise this from the animal rights campaigns I was involved in in my youth).
This is globalised and magnified when we consider the Middle East, Iraq, Burma, Zimbabwe, China & Tibet situations…
It is a risk to be open, to be vulnerable; one we are not often willing to take in our own small lives. Being part of communities, imperfect as they are, that at least try to be aware of these processes is perhaps a start.
Peace Ray and Liberata,
Thank you Ray for an interesting post, and both of you for an interesting discussion.
I can relate deeply to the idea of honouring the ‘other’. I find the boundaries between ’self’ and ‘other’ are increasingly blurred.
Abdur Rahman