Classroom Talk
Fall 2001 Archive
We don't know each other (Part Two) Posted by John on November 30, 2001 at 21:08:28:
Way to go, Lou. Howdy, Rakesh. These last postings of you two are like twin golden bookends around this whole discussion we've been having
about what has been going on in class here lately. And I hope both these sharings may prove constructively encouraging to our new friend, Bruce.
That's warrior work.
Thanks for that healing medicine, Deirdre. Tears came again to my eyes. George Harrison was such a powerful spiritual influence for the good in our
society. His fund-raising concert for starving people in Bangladesh many years ago was the first time that any of the great rock musicians woke up
and felt the call to make a gesture like that in the world. Many others have been doing it ever since.
Haw-haw! That story about the Buddha is *priceless*! "Don't apologize to me! Ask forgiveness of my friend. My friend is the one that had the
negative emotional reaction when you were stinging me." Hee-hee. That's *so* great! And so timely here!
.......................................................................
"I'm feeling bored." We All have a right to share that candidly when that is the truth that we are experiencing. It tells the other person truly who we
are. And even if it's harsh somewhat, it is a faithful marker in mutually understanding the reality of the here and now sistuation. Sometimes any one
of us may be educated in Truth when we find out that another person who is with us is being bored.
In a way, it reflects back upon us. And it *does* take courage not to flinch, but to hang in bravely and simply see, that in truth, at this time in saying
what one said (perhaps many times in the world) that the reaction of the other person is to be bored.
At the same time—I guess you could say this is "a fine point" in the play of this game—if a player *knows* that the person they are relating with is a
Student/Believer, they may also know and remember that the sorest button that gets pushed with this type happens with *not being approved of*.
Oh, you may not care whether you are approved of, or not. But please take note that there are people you are passing every day who have grown
up with a habitual need for perfectionism. They didn't want to be that way. They just grew up that way—coming out of their reactions in
childhood—and they ARE that way. And when they are not being approved of, it can wound them to the quick.
Knowing this, a mindful warrior for peace may be extra, extra careful in being gentle, and even loving, as they share the truth they have to share.
It doesn't turn out for the other person's good if they are battered and wounded by the way you express your truth. They are so distracted by the
reactions they have, when they have been wounded, that they can't hear *any* of your truth. So . . . finding a way to express your truth in a way
that hurts as little as possible (while still being outfront, frank, and candid!!!) is the art form we are talking about here.
Sometimes the truth hurts. And yet it is an even deeper truth that the truth can set you free.
........................................................................
Naw, you didn't let me down, Suz! In fact, it seems to me that you have taken the lead here in efforts to bring the class back closer to harmony again.
Thank you for pitching in with
that. When there are engagements going on in our midst, I am *always* looking for (hoping for) one of you students to take the lead in that effort.
Someday perhaps, I'll even see a bunch of you trying out awareness game strategies—right off the bat!—when these cyclical class upsets are going on.
That'll be "the glory days" for me around here. (Aha, heh-heh! There's my dreamer, Folks, my Student/Believer!)
(And you won't let me down if you do sting a classmate, by the way, or even if you do sting me. I fore-give you in advance, if you do. We are not
here to pretend that any of us are perfect . . . however, yes, we are here to study these imperfections as well as we can when they show up in our
midst, in any and All of us, and see if there's anything we can learn to do about them . . . as a *skill* in living life. And, I like your effort here, Suz . . .
as we're all just beginning to learn how to do this. I see you are trying to feel your way into putting these ideas into practice. Good for you.)
The whole problem, and the way these tense situations come up in the first place, is that we don't know each other. We don't understand where
each other are coming from. If we did understand, we wouldn't have to get uptight about stingers at all. We could empathize right away. "Oh." "I
see." "I get it what's happening with you." We wouldn't have to take it personally at all. We could just realize the obvious truth of it, per se. We
wouldn't have to "make anything out of it," so to speak, "make a big deal out of it" (which is where the human ego comes into the picture). We
wouldn't have to get uptight.
Not knowing each other, not understanding each other—this is the root of the human problem in relating with each other. Eric Burdon's plaintive lyric
described it so very well, from the perspective of being a mindful warrior for peace in here behind these eyes: "I'm just a soul whose intentions are
good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."
Can't we *all* relate with this plaintive prayer? Bruce is feeling deeply misunderstood. He felt he was doing the right thing. Sally is feeling deeply
misunderstood. She felt she was doing the right thing. And Suz, as well, in her efforts to moderate their upset with each other, (and stick up for her
sister at the same time) is being misunderstood. And she was trying to do the right thing.
All of you have said and done what you have said and done for the good and the benefit of the class. All of you have each even expressly stated that
you were coming from a sensitivity to my interests around here, you were speaking for *my* benefit, you were acting so my work wouldn't be too
hard. Everybody stop and reflect on this, please! So you can see—how interesting it is, in the midst of the actual turmoil and pain that was created—
that the intentions of each and every one of you souls have been good! And you have all been misunderstood.
And painful wounding has occurred on both sides of the issue. It is all so human. You have all been misunderstood. Suz has the right idea, when she
tells Bruce to use more care in the way he phrases what he says. Bruce has the right idea when he tells Suz pretty much the same thing. Each of you
has been seeing "the beam in the other one's eye" without fully recognizing the "mote" in your own. And the question has come up about who is it
that's *not* being loving. And all of you are "right" pointing to the absence of love on the other side of the issue, yet mistaken in not *also* turning the
pointing finger back around towards each of your own inner Selves.
There have been "absenses of love"—great way to put it—on BOTH sides here! Yet each of you only sees it in the other.
This is a scenario worth pausing over. Because it is all so typically human when an engagement is happening, that an ordinary person will pay all of
their attention to what the other person has been *doing to them*, and fail to pay any careful attention to "How is it that *I* am contributing to this
engagement? What is my part in sustaining this uptight match?" The normal thing, the usual thing, is to lock onto the other's behavior, and ignore
one's own.
In the awareness game, however, focusing on one's own behavior first is a priority! For, it does take two to tangle. As soon as either side wakes up
and has their feet on the ground, and completely stops tangling, the entanglement can no longer be sustained. Oh, there may be another stinging shot
fired, or two, from the other side, but if you wake up and stop fighting back completely, these last stingers from the other side fizzle out, and the
engagement is no longer sustained. (That's what Sally did at first, and effectively, and then her "army of pals" stepped in with their "well-intended"
efforts, on her side.)
We can see how Suz's efforts were directed at trying to help Bruce understand where they were coming from. She was frank, and candid, as her
sister had been before—yet both of you were being kind of hard on the new kid, or so I felt. What about that Sally? What about that Suz? Can you
agree that you were being kind of hard on Bruce? Do you see that you were being "a little edgy" in the ways you spoke to him? Or maybe I'm
wrong about that.
If not, then I bet neither of you sisters stopped and reflected that the ways you were talking were going to be pushing several of Bruce's most
sensitive buttons, and wounding him. And that was because Bruce had pushed your own most sensitive buttons, because from your point of view he
had "whined," as one of you judged it. And I'm sure he didn't know he was going to be pushing your buttons when he did that, especially since his
own most sensitive buttons had been pushed the day before that . . . . And those same danged painful buttons have been being pushed in Bruce's life
for a long way back in his history continuing up to now. You two were just the latest to be stinging him that way. And that's why, in my view, this is
something very valuable to come to Bruce's attention, in behalf of his own peace and happiness.
Since he's willing to learn to practice mindfulness, and he's willing to try out transformative work with us here, he might as well catch on that the *
music of* "What about me?!?!?!", the tone of it, the impact of it on some other people's bodies will bring about, like knee-jerk reactions, wounding
stingers from certain other people.
A day might possibly come, Bruce, when you tell us that this is the most valuable thing you ever learned in these classes, because you saw, and caught
on, and realized fully that your conditioned personality was getting in your way, bringing stingers back upon you unnecessarily, and making you into
"your own worst enemy." That day would come when you were able to practice getting off of playing the "What about me?!" game, and you realized
you didn't have to be identified with that funny stuff any more, and you could really do better without it.
In their ways, Sally and Suz were only trying to hip you to that, honestly. But as we are only beginning to study how to manage this dynamic kind of
"direct relating with other people awarely and candidly" in this class, it is natural, I suppose, that they are still struggling a bit with the technique. Heh-
heh. (I feared I was going to lose most of the class over this one, Folks! Our daily hit numbers at the blackboard have been up to all-time record
numbers for a week, without there being any more of us around here than usual. And I think that's a sign of you Folks wondering, "How in the
world is the coach going to deal with this impossible situation this time???")
........................................................................
Being new, Bruce doesn't know you as well as I do, Sally and Suz, or as well as the rest of the class knows the two of you. Suz, you might have told
him, "Me and my sister are tough go-getters. And we don't usually cut other people very much slack." That would have been constructively helpful to
enable him to understand. He might not have been happy about that, but at least he'd understand. At least he could say, "Oh. I see where you're
coming from."
Both of you sisters are physically strong, and highly competent in hands-on physical ways. You are hardy, and tough. If I had to go to Afghanistan
all of a sudden—as a contract war correspondent, say—I'd want to take you and Sally with me, Suz, to make sure that I'd get back okay.
In the thick of the battle, (heh-heh, the battle for peace and harmony)—make an imaginary movie out of this—think of Sally and Suz as top sergeants,
Bruce. You can count on their strength and their bravery! So if a new recruit comes along, while all of you are in the line of fire, saying "I'm
unworthy," "I'm not good enough," crying out, "What about me?!?1?!" . . . . . . Go ahead, you write the dialogue for this scene. What do those two
sergeants say in this movie? (I *hope* this analogy works!!!)
Well, they have been saying it. By Wednesday, the 28th, Suz was doing her "sergeanting" in a most friendly and mellow way.
>Keep on truckin my good man! Love suz.
But just the day before that, she was, uh, struggling with the technique.
>hence you obviously are too self involved still to try to be honest with yourself.
Ouch!!! . . . Ha! That's what a prototypical human reaction to the "What about me?" game looks like. Oweeee!
>it is because you tend to force people to be that way with you, asking for it if you will!
Can you all see that if the person being spoken to can just let the stinger of this pass right on through without gaining purchase on their body, without
clutching up with a negative emotional reaction, there is something useful to contemplate here. What is a good friend, if not one who can be candid
with you?
But . . . what is the person doing there? — Putting it all onto the other person, instead of taking responsiblity for it. How about "I notice I tend to
react that way like a knee-jerk reaction when you are doing it that way." That's taking responsibility for it. And that's telling the truth. Do you see
what I mean?
>The way you interact with all the other people here is what causes people to sometimes have to be honest about expressing themselves,which is very hard to do without it hurting a little,like I have tried to do!
I really enjoy seeing you struggling to make the method work for you here, Suz! Notice again, you are hanging a "who you are being" on him, instead
of offering a "who I am being." — "The way you interact . . ." you say.
How about: "I wonder if others in the class may not be having as hard a time as I am having not reacting automatically with stingers to the music of
the way you are interacting here."
No, I'm not suggesting memorizing a line like that, but only trying to convey a strategic idea here. You all can find your own words for these
strategies, once you understand what the strategies are. Here, for example, the strategy, in simple, might be: to be as candid and helpful as possible
without wounding the other person over it.
>Does the phrase "You can dish it out but you can't take it"ring close to home for you!Think about it!
It seems to me that's being pretty hard on the guy. But you've been stung already in this, and the urge to get back at him for it, and even the score,
seems to me to show up here. This "playground challenge" seems distinctly to me to be the Dictator talking. Especially with that "Think about it!"
demand, which is *in the form of a direct order*. In other words, you are "ordering him around" in saying that. Do you see what I mean there? and
that will never *work*. He's got to decide to work on this on his own, with the phenomenological information that he's got at his disposition. But if
he's *manipulated* to change, he is likely to be distracted by that, and react to that manipulation.
By the way, Suz, I love the nicknames you use. And watching the way you've been using this one, and then that one, a notion has come to me that
you "mean something different" each time you use a different nickname. Maybe I'm wrong here, but is it possible that when you use "hoodoosuz" the
message is kind of like: "I'm a bad ass, so don't mess with me." Heh-heh. No offense intended. Maybe there's no correlation. Or, is it possible that
you tend to use "hoodoosuz" more often when you want to come across with "the tougher side of you," so to speak?
And you were "Suz of the blizzardy North Woods" on that brisk day when you said: "Keep on truckin my good man! Love suz." Ah, "the softer side
of Suz" is *so much mellower* to experience—the side where we *know* that you CAN and DO be such a loving person as you really are.
And being even a little bit too pushy can get in your way. Do you suppose that it can't? Just as with Bruce's personality songs, sounding "bossy" if
you may sometimes fall into that, can rub other people that you know the wrong way, and stimulate them to oppose you (when they would work
right along with you otherwise!), and even sting you back sometimes (if they are brave), cheating you of harmony and happiness that you've
otherwise got coming.
I wonder if you stopped and reflected about it, when you heard Bruce saying:
>Suz
>[When you said] "Love, Suz of the North Woods." I didn't feel cared for, supported, or compassionately understood in your post; hence, funnsy stuff as the absence of love ricochets between your lines.
Good one! "I don't feel loved." That's a perfectly honest and inward-experience-sharing communication. You are giving it the old college try here,
Bruce. Good for you. Instead of putting it onto the other person as a judgment, for instance, "You are unloving," you shared your own experience
instead. "I don't feel loved."
You continued:
>What is this person doing here? Maybe telling me to "get lost!" "Shut up!" "Split!" ...etc...???? What are you really saying???
Now here's a great chance for you to catch on to something that may be very valuable, Suz, about how your own remarks are coming across to
another person. Maybe there's a clue here for you about how your own personality can get in the way. Sometimes *in the way you say it* you can be
understood that way . . . or very possibly *misunderstood* that way! But you can be cool enough, and objective enough, to catch on that it's not "off
the wall" for Bruce to be getting this idea about you. Isn't that so? Can you empathize with him reading it that way?
Perhaps you may remember a time quite long ago when another classmate here said pretty much the same thing to you. You two had tangled just a bit
then, and he thought you were telling him to "get out." Maybe in both cases you did kind of mean to say that at the time you spoke, but later,
perhaps, you didn't really want to say that at all. But if it was personality speaking for you in the heat of the moment, maybe you came across as
seeming to say: "Get out of here! This town isn't big enough for the both of us!"
Sometimes, if you are going a little bit too far, if you are coming across in the tone of your music as a little bit edgy, and you are giving a direct order,
the other person may be convinced that you are banishing them completely, and you may never hear an honest communication about that from them
(as Bruce's communication about this is quite candid and honest). And later you might wonder why, for one hypothetical example, they don't show up
at your holiday dinner party the next time. You might never find out the reason for it, or ever realize that your good old everyday personality had
gotten in your way. I don't know, but it might be worth checking this out. And if there's something to this, no big deal! See if you can feel contrite
about it. Call 'em up, and apologize for Pete's sake. It *can be* healed. We can All be forgiven if we're as honest about our mistakes as we can be
honest about the other things that we talk about.
Ain't no beeg ting! Some small kahuna talk along here. ;-) "Me make you feel bad, last time we talk, seestah. Me make ass."
"Aint no beeg ting!" the other will say. "When you having another luau (feast), seestah? I come over dere and give you one beeg hug."
You and Sally have been being somewhat hard on Bruce in some of the ways you've been saying your piece—harder than necessary, in my coachly
opinion. Bruce can't be ordered to stop being self-effacing or forced to stop being impatiently perfectionistic, even if the music of that kind gets on
your nerves. That approach will never work. Controlling only brings passive-resistance, or else possibly up-and-up fights. But he can be helped to
see that the music of those patterns gets in his way, rubs others the wrong way, and may cheat him out of some of the prizes he's got coming to him in
his life unnecessarily. He can be inspired to decide, on his own, FROM WITHIN, to work on it . . . when he sees he can make a better day-to-day life
for his Being that way, by his own volition, his own efforts. But he can't be forced to do that *by any of us* from the outside.
I imagine I see ego-driven personality in some of what you seestahs have been saying to bruddah Bruce. Isn't it obvious you have been being "a little
edgy" with him? And I have a hunch I see Dictator fear of Bruce there from both of you (as a factor in the class that's perceived to be "out of control")
. . . and some Rebel jealousy from Sally about Bruce, maybe (as a factor in the class that's perceived as "taking up all the attention," so to speak, and
"spoiling the beauty of it," that way. At least we know the sisters have been stung by this newcomer, who makes such a strong impression in his way,
and they can each react to him in their own ways, because they are only being human. Reacting to others is what humans ordinarily do.
So it's not that I'm taking their part against you, Bruce. And I'm not taking your part against them, either. I'm just trying to look at what's happening
here. What is each person here doing? It's easy for me to fore-give all of you, because I know each of you is only being human. Each of you have
your personality types. You've each been misunderstood by each other. People have been rubbed the wrong way, and—the way it is in this world—
people have *reacted* to each other, without understanding what's going on.
.......................................................................
I think one of the major things that has happened in this engagement, that has caused hurt feelings all the way around is the way that each of you
have accused the other of not being loving.
I thought one of the helpful and constructive things that you might have done in this situation, Suz, would have been to try to help Bruce to
understand that your sister is really a very loving woman. Even with all the hectic sibling rivalry that's gone on over the years between you two, you
*know* that your sister has love. You could have stuck up for her about that, and not have been attacking him at all. I don't know, but I think Sally
would have appreciated that a lot, if you had, because I think she has felt really misunderstood about this point.
And if Bruce, who doesn't understand this, had this information right out on the table before him, he would be able to look at everything that's
happened here in a different way. Sally is possibly the most loving person in our class, Bruce. And she has sacrificed more than you could imagine for
the people that she loves. Yet Sally is misunderstood about this.
And I would say she has no one to blame for this but her Self. She has been her own worst enemy in this. It is her own personality that gets in her
way and obscures this loving side of her Being from others. When she comes across on the outside with truly *flaming* stingers—what she calls her
"Psycho Sal;-)" side—how can anyone, especially someone that's just met her, see through these flames and understand the loving person that she is on
the inside?
Just one little story that Sally told me once is a good example here. I hope you don't mind my sharing this tale "out of school" from the Coach's Office,
Sally! One day she was working at the homeless shelter where she had been providing volunteer work, and she noticed an old, old lady who was
having trouble getting into her seat with her tray. Something about this old homeless woman touched Sally very deeply, and she was watching her.
The lady's fork got dropped somehow on the floor. Sally went over and picked it up, and she went and got a clean one to replace it with.
"John," Sally told me, "that woman looked deep into my face, and she said to me, "Thank you. No one every got me a clean one before when that
happened."
And I *knew* at that moment there were tears in Sally's eyes. I "saw" a tear run down her cheek. I "heard" the catch of deep compassion in her voice,
like a slight sob, almost. Our "tough top sergeant" was choking up there for several moments, Folks. What d'ya know about that?
That is exactly what love is. Love is spontaneously caring so much for the other person that the things that one's own ego wants and needs suddenly
become unimportant and insignificant for awhile. Love is when one cares so much for the other person that one's own Self just disappears from the
scene.
If you look at Sally's last couple of posts now on the board, you can see that she is working on this. She is taking a hand in clearing up this
misunderstanding about her. As time goes by, and she makes further progress on taming that impetuous flaming personality of hers, Sally will come to
understand that love IS all she needs. And all the rest of us will start to remember—even when she "slips again" the next time (for she is only human,
after all!)—that our dear Seestah Sally has all the right stuff on the inside. Sally is filled up with love in there. Her outward stingers will just pass right
on through without touching us then. We won't have to make anything out of it. We won't have to react at all . . . . . because we know her better,
we understand.
Since you are new around here, Bruce, with no one else to stick up for you and vouch for *your* love, I will volunteer to do that. I don't think you
have the Lover/Martyr in your make-up. I haven't seen much Martyr in you, especially when I might have expected it. But it's obvious you have a
big helping of the essential Lover in you, too. I've seen that. You are *always* thinking about love. You mention love almost every time you post.
Love has *great* meaning for you. You've got all the right loving stuff in there in you, too!
Even so, like others in this class, you may still have a little more to learn about love than you've already discovered so far. Are you willing to admit
that's a possibility? You said:
>Love covers a multitude of sins.
No, I really don't think it works that way, Bruce. I think it's just the opposite. Love doesn't cover our sins, in my view at least. It is our sins that
cover our love. It is when we get all the Self-ishness, all the "me first" out on the table transparently, and we learn to become contrite about that, and
step aside from that . . . . . that is when the love in each one of us will spontaneously and sincerely come shining on through.
From this recent engagement, it looks to me like All of us have got more work to do in this area. But this is only the beginning of this part of the
training, after all. I think we all can get better at this. But when we do, and even when we don't, I sure do love all you great Folks!
I hope you will all have some fun this weekend, if you can. Let's ***all*** take that famous "chill pill," and lighten up. Heh-heh {rascally grin} What d'ya
say?
Coach
Continue with Fall 2001 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived 01/08/2002