The Peaceful Warrior

How do people write blogs?





This discussion started days ago, at the very bottom of the page. So now it's completely ass-backwards, and getting more so every time I add something to it. Oh, well. Maybe that describes life's proper trajectory. Going forward can appear backward in the eyes of the world.

As I continue to re-read Karen Armstrong's book The Great Transformation, The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions, when I get to the section on the Bhagavad-Gita, or Song of the Lord, I'm reminded that Krishna answered the question "How do we defend ourselves from predators without becoming predatory ourselves?" 2300 years ago, as he counseled Arjuna on the eve of a major battle between warring princes:

...How could a warrior do his sacred duty to society without incurring the bad effects of the violent karma that he was forced to commit?

...Krishna proposed that Arjuna practice an alternative kind of yoga: karma-yoga. He made a shocking suggestion: even a warrior who was fighting a deadly battle could achieve moksha (awakening to one's true self). To achieve this, he had to dissociate himself from the effect of his action--in this case the battle, and the death of his kinfolk. Like any yogin, the man of action (karma) must give up desire. He could not permit himself to lust after the fame, wealth, or power that would result from the military campaign. It was not the actions themselves that bound human beings to the endless round of rebirth, but attachment to the fruits of these deeds. The warrior must perform his duty without hope of personal gain, showing the same detachment as a yogin...

...he must take the "me" and "mine" out of his deeds, so that he acted quite impersonally... by practicing karma-yoga he would in fact be detached from the world, even while he was living and active in it...could learn to transcend selfishness in the ordinary duties of daily life...

...the whole material world was a battlefield in which mortal beings struggle for enlightenment with the weapons of detachment, humility, nonviolence, honesty, and self-restraint. (bold added)
--The Great Transformation, The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions, pgs. 431-7
--Karen Armstrong


OK. Fight only when necessary, never for glory, and only for defense. Got it. Act like Yoda.

Which is so against human nature, with its psyche simply crammed full of archetypes like the ogre, the tyrant, the selfish stepmother, the cruel Baba Yaga. No wonder it takes some yoga, some sort of spiritual discipline, to access our saint or our wise ruler!

And not only do we have trouble changing masks -- we want to put that warrior mask on and leave it on, stomp around like Achilles, reap the spoils of victory, scare the shit out of lesser mortals -- half the time we don't know if what we're fighting for is worth having. I gave up 35 years of my life and all I got was a heap of possessions and a giant mortgage I'll never be able to pay off.

What if the warrior finds himself engaged in a battle he no longer believes in, or feels to be unjust?

Gnarled and Ancient Roots

The problem with "being good" is that human beings come from such gnarled and ancient roots. We usually come closer to a hummingbird knocking his fellow hummers off the feeder than we do to Buddha.

I'm old enough to have gone through the little spiritual revolution that took place in Portland in the late 60s and early 70s. Ran a natural food store, owned exactly 1 skirt (made out of a batik Indian bedspread), one pair of Danner boots, one pair of overalls, and lived over the store. 6 of the 8 apartments over that store, in a rickety old 1920s-era wooden building, housed idealistic 20-somethings who worked there.

As Dickens said, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Best because we were committed and dedicated -- save the world with organic agriculture and simple living! -- worst because we knew nothing about our own shadows. So no matter how hard we tried to be good, and we did try really hard, and we did do a lot of good, every once in a while something very bad would happen. Accusations would fly, relationships would explode, gossip would flourish, feelings would be hurt.

That Utopian experiment -- plus growing up in a fundamentalist household -- taught me that "absolute goodness," or "compassion for all beings," is just not a reachable goal for most of us. There are breakthrough personalities, who truly get it and can actually do it -- Confucius, Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Black Elk, Dalai Lama -- but few of us ever hit that plane. The rest of us would be better off admitting we have some unpleasant characters in our personality, and learning how to deal honestly and openly with them; better off to get to know our inner caveman, than to pretend like he doesn't exist. (first and second blogs)

It's hard to be good. In fact, some of the meanest people I know try the hardest to be good. Go to church every week end, cheat people in business every week day. Know the words to every hymn in the book, say terrible things about others. Are politically active, but have no tolerance at all for other political opinions. "Goodness" involves judgment. One thing better than another. Us and them.

"Goodness" does not occur in nature. It's another man-made construct, like justice or fairness. Beauty occurs in nature, tragedy occurs in nature, violence, love and nurturing all occur in nature. But goodness? Whether budding out or dropping its leaves, a tree is neither bad nor good. It's simply "tree." One whole thing.

Reminds me of a famous Jung quote: "I'd rather be whole than good."

If it were OK for human beings not to be so good all the time, not to always be right, not to have the last word, not to know every answer, would they become easier to live with?

If we could accept that we are merely animals -- or, with such gnarled and ancient instinctual roots, maybe even plants now and then -- could we become better human beings?

Balancing Aggression & Compassion

In the course of self-publishing Using Beauty, I went through a bruising process with someone who treated me less-than-honorably. I have some righteous indignation, some anger, some bitterness about the whole thing.

But I've been re-reading Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation, The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions, and got to the section on Buddha last night. In light of what I've gone through lately, the concept of loving everything, of having compassion for all beings, is mind boggling. I mean... This guy? Dick Cheney? Child molesters?

How DO we balance the parts of ourselves that are aggressive, selfish and violent, with the parts of ourselves that want to be tolerant and compassionate?

How DO we protect ourselves from predators, without becoming predatory ourselves?