There’s another blog that I read, almost on a daily basis, called Break the Illusion. It’s written by this young gay guy who calls himself Davey Wavey. Most of the time his posts are very “zen spiritual” (if that’s a term), but then there will be entries that are very frank and blunt about sex and sexuality. In his video entries he is almost never without a smile and almost always without a shirt—and pants. (It helps that he pretty damn hot!)

In one of his more recent entries, Davey talks about coexisting with others. (Be forewarned before clicking on the link—the second half of that entry talks about his trip to Chinatown in New York City and includes a picture of carved phallic items being sold in a store there.)

Although his post is quite interesting, what intrigued me more were a number of the comments that turned into mini-discussions/arguments. Sometimes those commentators get real nasty and there are moments when I wonder why the heck they bother reading Davey’s blog when all they do is insult him. I do have to give it up to the boy, though—regardless of how vehement people get, he always seems to keep that smile going. I’m not sure I could do that.

Anyway, I don’t know how or why, but my mind latched onto the conundrum of coexistence with others and the whole concept has been bouncing around in my brain—even during my meditations. (“Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Oh, here comes that coexistence thought. Wave to the nice subject as it goes by kids. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Looks like coexistence is passing through again. Everyone get out of the street! There it goes again. Breathe out. Breathe in….”)

In the post, Davey says: “But at the end of the day, we don’t all need to be on the same page; we don’t all need to be friends. But we do need to live together. We need to coexist. And as such, I think it makes sense to have a healthy appreciate for opinions, ideas, cultures and beliefs that aren’t our own (with the exception of racism, sexism and all the other -isms that minimize others).”

Here was the first place my brain paused. Did his statement just make sense? On one hand he says that we need to appreciate other opinions and beliefs and yet he excludes “-isms that minimize others”. That isn’t coexisting with everyone because he’s just blocked anyone who believes in an -ism.

Now, as one commentator responded: “In Iran (and other places I’m sure), they hang teenagers for being gay … I don’t need to live with these people or coexist with them. I need to see them disappear.” Obviously this person doesn’t believe that people of different opinions can coexist together. He seems to feel that the only way to live together is to get rid of everyone who doesn’t fit in his ideals.

A responder to that comment makes a point: “If you want people to accept your views and beliefs I feel it’s critical to set the example and respect theirs, whether or not you agree with them. I think it’s a crime against humanity to kill someone for choosing to be whatever they will be but if our reaction to that is crushing their system and replacing it with our own we are no better than they are.”

It was immediately argued by someone else: “I should respect the views of murderers, rapists and child molesters? If someone can’t tell good from evil, well then I just feel sorry for them. And if they can’t stand up to evil when they see it, they’re just cowards.”

To which the responder adds: “I understand that some of these behaviours are harmful while others aren’t. We have laws to deal with behaviours that are harmful. But hatred towards these people isn’t helpful in the least. Without some compassion we will never understand why people act as they do and believe as they do.”

The argument continued with: “…there ARE evil people out there. Rational, sane people recognize the difference between evil deeds and differences of opinion. Believing people deserve to die because they are gay is an opinion, killing them because they are gay is an evil deed. That is a line that sane, rational people do not cross.” This person at least makes the distinction between beliefs and actions, which is fairly valid point.

But I think this person summed up the conundrum best: “The inherent paradox of suggesting people should allow different viewpoints to “coexist” or suggesting that all beliefs are o.k. and valid for people to have is that eventually there will be beliefs that directly oppose *that* idea. There are some belief systems and viewpoints that specifically say one should convert others to yours, or that people who don’t see the world/believe like you are bad. . .”

For a while, this puzzle has been bouncing around in my head. There are people out there who say that this world would be a better place if everyone could just learn to live together, and yet what they really mean is that the world would be a better place if everyone believes just like me. Some say that we could live in harmony if only we got rid of the “evil” people— but who gets to dictate the definition of evil? Is it truly possible for people to coexist without putting any qualifiers or conditions on each other in order to have a harmonious relationship?

Somewhere along the line, the different fragments of thought that had been swimming in my gray matter began to fall into place. I get it—but I can’t seem to express what’s in my head. It’s like trying to explain to a van Gogh painting to a blind person or a Beethoven symphony to someone who is hearing impaired. It’s more than just the colors or the notes. There’s an experiential quality to them that just can’t be put into words.

But it’s not enough to just know. One has to live it, incorporate it into their actions—their being. The hard part is over, and yet the hard part hasn’t even begun.

I went out to dinner with a bunch of friends tonight after a business meeting. There were a total of ten of us in the party and, as we are wont to do, we asked for five separate checks. We do this all the time and the restaurant has no problem with it. The catch to the whole thing is that it takes a little bit longer than normal to bring us our food. Most of us routinely go out together and it doesn’t phase us. It’s also a pretty typical occurrence at any restaurant when you have a party containing more than six people and you ask for separate checks.

There’s this one friend who just boasts he’s a Buddhist. Well, not the kind of boasting where he goes around verbally telling everyone he’s a Buddhist. He’s more like the “show and tell” type. If you go to his place, he’s got Buddha statues all over the place. If you go to buy him a gift, it’s always some kind of Buddhist book. He’ll quote Buddhist scripture at the strangest moments. He’ll wear clothing with Buddhist symbols. He just oozes Buddhism.

So, we’re sittin’ and chillin’ after placing our orders. Within ten minutes we have our drinks. About fifteen minutes after that the appetizers arrive for those that ordered them. We eat them and the staff takes away the dishes. As we wait for the meals to arrive, most of us are having some lively discussions.

I look over that this friend and notice he’s getting grumpy. He glares at the waiter bringing the meal for the table of four sitting behind us, who just so happened to arrive after we did. He proceeds to grumble a bit loudly about that fact and says that we had damn well better get our food soon. As if on command, two of the restaurant staff approach our table with large trays loaded with our meals. Total time from arrival to meals—about 45 minutes. Not too shabby for this place. It usually takes them over an hour on a busy night to handle a group our size with drinks, appetizers, and meals on more than one check.

The waiter placed the platter of loaded fries in front of this friend. He took one look at it and immediately exploded. He yelled that it took 45 minutes for the food to arrive. He snarled that the table behind us got served before we did even though we were there first. He lied that there were other large groups in the restaurant who’s orders didn’t take as long. (There weren’t any other large groups.) And to top it all off, he screamed that there wasn’t enough bacon on his loaded fries and immediately threw the dish back at the waiter. He followed that up with a demand that the restaurant remove it off his bill and he wanted his check immediately.

All conversation at our table stopped. I’m not sure if everyone was intimidated by him or embarrassed because of him. I know for myself it was a little bit of both emotions. However, I also felt a little sad for him. He proclaims he’s a Buddhist and yet he’s wound up tighter than a clock to the point where a few measly bits of missing bacon send him on a rampage worthy of Godzilla.

Two waiters and a manager tried to placate this guy, but he was having none of it. He eventually got his check and hurried them to cash him out so he could leave. Once he was gone, the rest of us were able to eat our meals in peace—but all of joy about being together and having a good time had pretty much been destroyed.

There are so many things in life to be experienced and the time we have is precious few. How sad he couldn’t live in the now and enjoy the moment. It’s amazing how he gave all the power to a little bit of missing bacon and allowed it to kill the time spent socializing with friends.

What has priority in your now?

One of my friends posted an article on CNN about a mother who is determined to be the world’s fattest woman. Immediately everyone jumped on the bandwagon to condemn this heavy-set woman and her quest to make it into the Guinness Book of World Records. In actuality, it really was nothing more than lots of name-calling to indicate that this lady is thoughtless: about her own health, about her young daughter, and about what kind of message she is putting out there.

I will say, I had a moment there where I was about to join into the fray of derogatory names, but it immediately went away before I could even post a comment. You see, the Universe graced me with this quote this morning:

Don’t see other’s faults, see your own. For if you dwell on other’s faults, your own get stronger.

The Buddha
Flaws, verses 252 & 253

It would be so easy to attack this woman. But the question is, would it be right? What do I get out of posting a comment that she will never read? Probably a sense of pride for not being as overweight as she is, and superiority for having worked really hard to lose the weight that I had gained, feeling smarter than her if only because her choice seems stupid, and definitely a moment of schadenfreude, which sums it all up nicely. (Schadenfreude is a German word that basically means “happiness at the misfortune of others”.)

The problem is that every one of those things I would experience would be a fault. No matter how bad I think she is messing up her life, just one negative comment from me makes my “sins” a lot worse than hers. I’m not in any position to control her life or make decisions for her. Sure, I can complain about it, but what good will come out of that? She’s not here to listen to it, and I doubt she would listen to any negative comments about her choice.

There’s only one person I can control, and that is me. Complaining about other people’s faults is just plain stupid and it serves no useful purpose. Correcting mine is easy, for that is the only person I can control—and in the end, my life is the only one that really should matter to me.

While surfing the net, I happened to find this quote:

One of the main characteristics of the Buddha, and one which we have present in all of us, is compassion. Compassion is often wrongly associated with being nice to people. In fact, there are times when it is not at all compassionate to be nice to someone because it just encourages them in their delusion.

Which is why I say to you, with the deepest compassion, that you are a complete dingbat….

Yes, the quote is funny and it brought a smile to my face. At the same time it made me think about the concept behind the word “compassion”. Like the speaker says, I think many people do equate “compassion” with “kindness”. After all, when we are showing compassion towards someone, aren’t we really being kind to them? Not really.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word compassion comes from mid-14th century Old French compassion, from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) “sympathy,” from compassus, past participle of compati “to feel pity,” from com- “together” + pati “to suffer”. Meanwhile, The Oxford Essential Dictionary: American Edition defines compassion as: “pity inclining one to be merciful.”

Compassion isn’t really about trying to be kind to people; it’s about feeling pity and showing mercy. Realizing this equation helps to understand this quote from Buddha: “Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering.”

You can’t substitute the word “kindness” in that sentence, because it doesn’t make sense. How does “kindness” counterbalance “suffering”? It doesn’t. If fact, sometimes kindness can cause suffering. Think about it. Have you ever had a time where you were feeling down in the dumps and had a friend try to show you a little kindness? How did that make you feel? I know for myself that many times their little act of kindness actually made me feel worse that before. Kindness doesn’t offset suffering.

On the other hand, if you use the word “mercy” in place of “compassion” the phrase balances out. If something is suffering, we can take pity on it and show it mercy. It is through mercy that we can the appropriate action, like showing kindness, or help shoulder the weight, or provide comfort, or even admonishment (though calling a person a “dingbat” may not be the best approach if you want them to see the error of their ways).

Of course, compassion isn’t only something that you do for others. Sometimes you need to perform a little compassion on yourself. Allow yourself to make mistakes. Don’t be harsh on yourself if you’re feeling depressed. Let yourself be imperfect. We all have flaws. As the Dalai Lama says: “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”