No Defending

In previous posts I have mentioned a book that I like very much, a very inspiring one. It is The Second Book of the Tao, by Stephen Mitchell. There is a world or two of wisdom in it, and one of my favorite entries relates to the idea of no opposition.

When nothing is left to argue with

and there is nothing to oppose,

you will find yourself at peace

and in harmony with all things.”

These are the last four lines from a longer piece, about which I could easily write two or more posts, but in this one I want to talk only about these lines.

We interact with others constantly, and each of those interactions offers chances for things to go well or poorly. More often than we would like, we find ourselves enmeshed in a difficult, if not hostile, interaction. Serenity, assuming we had any to begin with, is gone in an instant. Harmony? Gone as well. Why? Because we have allowed ourselves to be captured by the trouble of the moment (opposition) and, embodying that trouble, respond in unhealthy ways. Such engagements are unpleasant because they are nearly always characterized by an “I-win, you-lose” posture, and frequently animated by the damaging needs to be right or to be certain (see last post). 

These engagements call to us to defend our own views and oppose the other’s. In our lucid moments, most of us will agree that this seldom produces anything of benefit, with the usual outcome being negative, with anger, resistance, denial, accusations and ad hominem attacks in abundance. Even if the parties are calm and composed, if the need to win or prevail characterizes the engagement, that calmness will go for nothing. 

What should I do with the following statement directed at me? “Your views on government intervention in the economy are crazy.” This person is pitching a hard ball, hoping I will try to hit it out of the park, precipitating an unpleasant free-for-all. He is ready and hoping for a battle royale. In full opposition mode, I try to overwhelm him with data, mis-representations, outright lies, emotional diatribes, anything to win. He, of course, does precisely the same. But what if there is nothing to defend, nothing to oppose. There is no hard ball and there is no hit. But there may be peace and harmony for both of us if I manage the conversation (myself) to mutual benefit. 

But what does “nothing to defend” mean? It means that, no matter how important the view is to me, I invest it with no emotion, nor do I have an exaggerated (or any) commitment to its correctness. I understand that it counts for nothing beyond my own mind. What is important at the moment is the interaction with another person who has different views. My important view does not dictate how I will respond to opposing views. The need to defend arises because I want to have a particular outcome, either to change someone or to punish them for having opposing views, goals which are sure to elicit unpleasant oppositional reactions.  

Can we be in harmony and contest another’s view. Sure, but everything depends on our attitude toward the view and our concern for the well being of the other person. If we are empty of the need to defend our view simply because we think it right or because it is ours, if we are empty of the need to change or punish the other person, our interactions will go well. With that emptiness we can inquire with and engage the other person in ways that do not make them wrong, but which lead to greater clarity, understanding and connection. Further, good friends can debate and argue with no emotional ill-effects when it is clear to both that it is the interaction that matters and not the outcome of the debate.  

With emptiness of the need to defend we interact with “opponents” in ways that are healthy and respectful for both, and which allow us to reach higher levels of harmony---needed more than ever in today’s contentious and unbalanced world.