Anti This, Anti That Part 2

Last month I ran a piece on here about the need to be unequivocally pro-something rather than anti-something if we really want to make a definitive and long lasting positive change in the world. It is not possible to stop war by being anti-war. It is not possible to stop racism by being anti-racist. It is not possible to stop animal abuse by being anti-animal abuse. Pro-peace, pro-equality, pro-compassion. These are the things that make a difference. These are the things that turn the world around and spin it in a new direction.

This is not some obtuse theory that needs to be vindicated by example, by test, by experimentation. History - ALL history, of every culture through every time period teaches us this truth. There are no exceptions. It is not a theory. It is in the bag already.

When I re-posted the original 'Anti This, Anti That' post on my own MySpace page, the reaction that I got in the form of comments was somewhat different to the one's received here. I was utterly astonished at some of the negativity and the hanging on to anger and violence that was apparent in some of the comments - and these from supposedly 'spiritual' people. So here I am revisiting but with as much passion as previously for the same unequivocal stance that being anti-anything is a recipe for revolution, not evolution.

One commentator stated "I would love to see a world run on compassion and equal co-operation but I'm also a realist". He went on to say "If I come upon a group of skinheads beating up someone downtown I'm not going to try and open a dialogue with them. I'm going let my fists do the talking. Not a situation I would relish but I won't stand by and be passive while someone is beat to death." Where should we stand on an issue such as this?

Firstly, let's do away with this notion that being compassionate and treating people with respect is not realistic in terms of making a change in the world. It does. There is no argument on this - thought is energy, love is energy, compassion is energy and we have no choice but to put that energy out into the world - our thought forms spiral out into the world and influence the world around us. Thoughts have a direct and measurable effect on the world. Being a realist in the sense given here is not about realism, it is about buckling under the weight of the task involved in educating enough people to use the force of compassion and love in the world, instead of the force of hate and anger. We can all hypothesise about make-believe situations and what we might or might not do in those situations, but what is the point in this? This is not a reflection of reality, it is fantasy. This is a reflection of an ego's desire to find a justification for it's particular stance on an issue. In a violent situation, such as the one outlined above, we simply do what we feel that we need to do at the moment - in that instant. Whatever it is. There is just no point in having pre-determined strategies for hypotheses such as these which are highly unlikely to come about in any case. A sense of realism is most definitely needed here.

Another commentator had this to say:

"I choose to fight for what I believe in with all my might, it is my right!...We have to fight, Steve. This world would be a lot different if we did not have the Hero's that stood up for Human/Animal Rights...I am Spirit Warrior and I will fight injustice till there is no breathe left inside me...STAND UP AND FIGHT for what you believe in...it is a right and duty..."

There are of course many who choose to stand up and fight for what they believe in: racists, fascists, animal experimenters, war-mongers and dictators, armed militias...they too have this right - just as we all have the right to fight on the opposite side of that equation. Everyone has the right to fight for what they believe in, but the sad consequence of all of that fighting is that the majority of people who have no axe to grind, or are not in any way connected to the dispute, get dragged into people's 'rights' to fight for what they believe in. These are the one's that get harmed in the end, the one's that we have no right to foist our agenda upon - whatever it is, regardless of the cause or it's apparent worthiness - a state of being which is, incidentally, entirely subjective.

If fighting had brought about an equitable world at all, we would have no more animal experiments, no more wars, no more rape, no more torture, no more totalitarianism and we would all be living in an idyllic wonderland. As a race we have been fighting for countless generations and have achieved not a single thing through it. We have just watched the scales tip back and forth. We don't have a utopia because people insist on exerting their 'right' to fight. The rest of us, who want no part of those battles have to pay for the consequences of the minority who think that fighting can somehow bring about a positive outcome.

Fighting for your belief (and that is all it is: not an eternal truth) most certainly is not in any way a duty. It is an abdication of intelligent thought and a commitment to taking the road of least resistance. It has always been the easy option. When you don't like something: attack it. The IRA did this in Northern Ireland and achieved nothing in spite of their deeply held conviction that they were in the right (just as the British held a similar view on their side of the argument). The Animal Liberation Front in the UK has been attacking various establishments and properties for a considerable number of years to put an end to animal abuse in all forms - this is their deeply held conviction and have achieved nothing. Of course, the people they attack have equally firmly held convictions that they are right and will do just as much to protect their agenda. How many examples are needed? When can we drop this ego-bound commitment to the idea that the way we think the world should run, is just our opinion, and one that is in direct conflict with the way that others think the world should be run?

Let's also deal with this concept of 'duty' a little more. Now, at the risk of alienating some, the concept of one's 'duty' is something that is, in fact, peculiarly totalitarian in its use and expression of collective agendas. Certainly in the UK (and I am not really qualified to speak for other countries), the idea that one has a 'duty' is not readily absorbed as a part of one's personal make-up. The British are a contrary lot and don't take kindly to anyone (least of all the British government) telling them that they have a duty to do or be anything. So being told that I have a 'duty' to do anything grates considerably on this particular typical Brit.

'Duty' is a word that has been used to round up the citizens of various nations to a particular cause or a particular agenda for a lot of years and it has become something of an anthemic word in a number of countries and certainly permeates American popular culture at all levels. It is a word, that when all else fails, politicians, or other agenda-makers have and will continue to use to inculcate obedience within a significant percentage of the population. It smacks of nationalistic gung-ho political fervour and carries no weight or significance outside of that context; so using it here - in a supposedly spiritual context, to foster the idea that we have some sort of 'duty' to bend to an agenda is whistling into the wind.

Let's get back to the fight: While the fighting goes on, there is no hope. Fighting is the fools weapon of first choice. It is the reason why we shall never have a sustainable and peaceful world. It is a direct consequence of humanity's total inability to learn the lessons of the past in every arena and to be able to see the causes and consequences of actions that we take.

I am not advocating a 'sit down and be nice to everyone' policy in the hope that things will just work out on their own either. I am very up for a revolution! We need more revolutions, but we need them first in thought and in introspection and a realisation that what we hold to be true is not true at all, but just an opinion and that there are other sides to that argument that need to be respected. When we see the others perspective then we stand a chance of resolving difficulties without killing each other. The winner is not the one who wins the battle and kills the most enemies, it is the one that can turn the tides of the world by causing a revolution in the hearts and minds of ones opponents.

Chris Buck, one of the founders of Humanity Healing had this to say on the issue:

"What many people do not seem to understand is that you can oppose an action or activity without attacking the people doing it. One of the Twelve Keys of Spiritual Activism states: "Do not defame your detractors or those who doubt you. A confrontational approach leads to a defensive reaction. Approach others with openness and compassion in your heart. Build on the commonalities between you instead of focusing on the differences. As much as possible, detach yourself from the results of your actions. Aspire to always be a peacemaker."

Chris makes some pertinent points and it certainly is important to embrace and build on similarities between two opposed stances, but more than this it is also ultimately important to embrace the differences. Whilst these stay in the closet there is always a nagging doubt about the motives and the actions of the 'other'. A marriage is founded on trust, understanding, compassion and love and these qualities emerge and enfold one in spite of the differences which are accepted with equanimity...this is the way we should approach all: with equanimity. We MUST learn to embrace the differences too. We cannot turn our back on these and expect to live in peace and harmony whilst we fear or reject or ignore the differences. We need to cherish these also.

I want to finish this piece off with a comment that was sent to me from a staunch and valued member of the Humanity Healing family, Saurab Marjara:

If we look beyond the general connotation of a word such as "anti", which over time has obviously gathered a kind of meaning that is negative, we could see that it could also mean "not in agreement with", although of course, it could mean different things to different people, depending on where they are coming from emotionally. Sometimes we may use our disagreement with life-situations that affect others outside of our day to day life, as a way to avoid facing personal grief /unresolved pain, in which case, being "anti" would simply result in projecting one's own negativity onto a problem and this can only lead to more mischief, and more problems, not less....as you mentioned, because pain cannot resolve pain. The other possibility is when we disagree with something, out of empathy for the suffering of another, but there is an absence of negativity. In such cases, i think it is sensible to take a stand against something, if it is needed. Can we be against something (not someone), without being negative? I think this is possible.The reason why this is important is that compassion and insight must complement each other and sometimes there can be a clear insight into something that would need one to be not in agreement with something. When can this kind of an approach go wrong (be not-skillful)? I think this can go wrong, if we do not have the emotional discipline required to maintain a state of non-reaction, when we are against something. It is at this point, that disagreement takes on a negative meaning, and then our own pain finds an outlet via that which we are not in agreement with. So, what begins as insight, can result in negativity, very easily, if we are not careful. I think it is for this reason that it is recommended to always take an approach that validates, rather than invalidates (is a "yes" rather than a "no") being that none of us, or perhaps very few of us, are truly free from pain and therefore free of the possibility of projecting our own pain via our disagreements. The other problem is that..... thought is so set in form and crystallized by it's very nature, as opposed to an insight that moves in-context all the time. If/when it is there, that the application of prior thought to a problem per-se is always not exactly in-context, and therefore there is always some form of discrepancy, if problems are sought to be resolved at the ideological level, even if the formation of the ideology was the result of insight. If there could be mental clarity, through less thought activity, and no prior conclusions, then there could be room for insight to be there more and more, which insights are always in-context and always fresh and new, even with regard to problems that are old, and I think it is then that our responses would be most adequate...."

Saurab makes some extremely valuable points here and of course it is true that in many instances it does require a recognition of a problem for us to generate a contradictory stance. How can we become actively pro-peace without the recognition that there is war? How can we become actively pro-equality without the recognition that there is racism and other forms of discrimination? But, as Saurab makes clear, there is a need, once this recognition takes place to apply insight and wisdom and to then form a re-orientated stance to the particular issue and not be swallowed up with a negatively focused, non-productive angst.

Positively focused agendas are fundamentally full of joy and creativity. For those who are pro-something the world opens up to a plethora of possibilities and imagination can run riot on ways to encourage the creation of that which we desire. All evolutionary steps are creative and begin first with the rampant imaginings of those who dare to dream. Negatively focused agendas have no where to go, are not creative and offer nothing of evolutionary value to anyone.

I am sure that there is much more that can be said on this issue and I look forward to your responses - whatever they might be.

Many blessings, metta and salam-alikum,

Steve