Non-Judging for Loving

From second of four-part series in Pathfoinder's Commune, by Rem Tanauan

JUDGING IS A DEFAULT PROGRAMMING IN OUR MINDS. It is something automatic, something we are unaware of. I remember a friend who often sees his world full of judgment. He has always something ugly and disagreeable to say about almost all people, situations and things that come in his way. Whenever he comes across with a person he hates, he would echo what the young psychic boy says in the movie Sixth Sense: "I see dead people."   I would laugh on his sort of acidic humor and always tell him not to be too hard on people. He would simply quip and tell me he doesn't really care at all. I deeply understand how he finds his world in this way. He grew up in a family where the word unpleasant is palpable everyday. And he would tell me not to wonder, for his world has made him the person he is.

He reminds me of this default that I even hardly reprogram. Years ago I had judged a lot of things, such as how people see me, or how I see others, or those lousy TV programs and celebrities, or nonstop political commotions, or our lives becoming more stale and boring. I judged every thing down to the littlest detail, like that of the appearance of others, or the way they think in contrast with the way I think. I was a self-righteous man who often see myself thinking the proper way, working more excellent than others. When I found people much better than me, then I started to judge myself as worthless and deprived as I compared myself to them. Practicing Detachment has given me a clear perspective to see how judging works.

There are in fact 2 distinct ways of judging. The first one is to conclude. If we assume that any person, thing, or situation would happen or appear the way it happened in the past, this is abrupt conclusion. We conclude because we thought that our "bad" experiences might repeat again. Conclusions are rampant in our society everyday, and they go with different terms such as stereotyping and stigma. We conclude that things will go bad because of the dwindling economy or our lives would go wrong if we don't do something else. Our decisions are largely driven by our fears, and we often end up more regretful than what we were before. The second way is to compare. This is the other wing that makes judgment soar high in our senses. We often compare ourselves base on what we see in the society. We feel better when we find someone much worse than us. We feel worse when we find much better than us. This comparison encompasses different aspects, all of them are external factors, such as career, clothing, possessions, money and power.

It's about time to cut off these wings of judgments. This is never an overnight job. Nonetheless, with everyday awareness, we can see ourselves in the point of unconscious judging. The practice of this art calls for our vigilance and discipline. It does not really matter if you judge someone because they look unfashionable, as to compare judging someone being corrupt. Both are judgments, as long as you generate disgust, hatred and fault-finding attitude. It takes a small shift of consciousness, like that of crossing a railroad. When you find yourself judging, stop. Look at the person or situation you are judging. Listen to the voice of your compassion within: "I see a Loving person within him/her waiting to be awakened." "I see a Loving purpose in this situation/thing." Whenever you feel the urge to judge, challenge your thoughts. Then see the opportunity to intend blessings, in many ways you can; prayers, intentions, affirmations, and acceptance will suffice.

Often we have overlooked the power of judging ourselves, when in fact this is the most dangerous. Our ways of judging others are sheer reflections of how we judge ourselves. So the moment you dislike a person, whatever circumstances it takes, begin to reflect on your judgments. What is it you see in others that you can also see (but refuse to see) in yourself? This is a daunting task, but trust that you are bound to succeed. What you see outside is what is unheeded inside. No one causes you harm and problems but yourself. When you start become aware of this, you have reached the first step to Detachment.

Judging ourselves and others have resulted from our thoughts deeply ingrained in our unawareness. They manifest in the process of our automatic reactions towards outside circumstances, it ricochets back to us with disturbing emotions. Without mindful Nonjudging, we will perpetuate these repetitive forces that bring us inner hell. The basic medium of the art of Detachment is the constant awareness of Nonjudging. We begin to detach when we do not judge. This teaches us to do unbiased observation and alertness of our situations and the people involved, particularly the subject of our reactions. We eventually learn to see clearly, without bigotry and narrowmindedness. We can easily accept our own shortcomings and failures as we pursue our inner goodness that we can always be. We can share this by doing the same for others, with full understanding and empathy. In the light of Mother Teresa's words, when we stop judging, we can now spend more time for our most important task: Loving.

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

  STAND-ALONE POSTS:

. Peace Advocacy and Environmental Advocacy Excerpts from the "Editorial," Kamayan Forum Journal Digest No. 103, September 2010:

THE ORGANIZERS of the forthcoming Peace-camp-Masbate 2010, a   pioneering  peace education initiative, have good reason to include environmental concerns as a major topic in the three-day learning activity to be held late next month in Uson town in that island-province south of the Bicol peninsula. Ms. Hyacinth R. Merioles, project lead initiator, who hails from Masbate, said “building peace within each person, among persons within their families and communities, and peace with the natural environment” is crucial in the overall efforts to build a culture of real and lasting peace.  She caused the inclusion of the topic “Sharing the Earth, the Matter of Economy and Equity” among those to be carried in learning modules during the Peacecamp. Ms. Merioles’ words hew closely to those of Professor Saleem Ali, a professor of Environmental Planning at the University of Vermont’s Rubinstein School of Environmental and Natural Resources.  (A few paragraphs discussing Prof. Ali’s ideas on ecological diplomacy follow.) The eloquent Pakistani-American academic had spoken at a seminar recently, hosted at the United Nations University Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP), about a form of ecological diplomacy that is gaining prominence — peace parks. Masbate being among the ten poorest provinces of the country, Merioles predicted that due to poverty, a big number of the hundred plus Peacecamp-Masbate participants who are mostly seniors of a public high school in Uson town near Masbate City would not be able to complete a college education or even be able to enter college. “The Peacecamp seeks to reach out to these youths to give them at least the basic inputs that can encourage and enable them to be productive citizens in their respective local communities.”  Active environmentalism, coupled with positive peace advocacy can be a big help in helping them chart their own lives amid their poverty, she adds. Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

STAND-ALONE POSTS: Personal Peace of Mind, Heart, Soul...   Alma Romero (member, Pamayanang Saniblakas -- Kilusang Lakas Pamayanan):      "Let us aspire for personal peace of mind, heart and soul." Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

STAND-ALONE POSTS: A Life of Peace   Fr. Felix Labios (Parish priest of Cabangan, Zambales): "A life of peace is enjoyed by those who live with wisdom, simplicity and contentment. Living in  peace has greater value than gold."   Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

STAND-ALONE POSTS:

Honest Humility for Earnest ('Peaceward') Conversations From a "Letter From the Editors," LightShare Digest No. 2, July-Sept. 2005:

Ding Reyes: "Only honest, earnest conversations can lead to peace."   THERE ARE three kinds of views, we’ve been told: “my view, your view, and the valid one.”  That is just to remind any pair of debaters or mind gladiators that they can both be wrong.  Of course, they can both be right, or at least partly right, with each one furiously refuting what the other one is not saying, and with both engaged more in a battle of egos than in a contest of ideas, especially if there is a crowding audience to impress. It is all right for debating clubs to behave this way in a formally-declared competition, where each contestant openly eyes a trophy or medal not really for having the best ideas but more for logical thinking, mental alertness, full-bodied articulations and clever use of psychological dirty tricks. It's not all right when the pattern of the   passionate   mental  boxing gets dragged into what is, or at least what starts out to be, an earnest human conversation. Minus that kind of competitive passion, everyone in conversation can afford to remind oneself of the possibility of being utterly wrong. Minus the pressure to immediately prepare an answer that would ”score against the opponent's ongoing statements,” all are afforded the chance to listen to one another's ongoing statements until after these statements are completed and fully understood. Earnest human conversations are held by people who come together to share knowledge, opinions and feelings, with each one eager to learn from the others, with each one conscious that he or she could not possibly have beforehand all the truth there is to have on any topic, much less a monopoly of truth. Each one would then be eager to have his or her own truth checked, validated, enriched by other minds.  Then there would be a sharing of the individual rays of light, from where lightshare and “sanib-sinag” projects got their name. People who are most confident that their thoughts are valid can well afford to speak their truth quietly.  They know that such validity does not need to be enhanced, or proved, by forcefulness in delivery. They are also confident that the listener would sooner or later recognize as valid a very calmly-delivered point when enough experiences shall have been had to appreciate its wisdom. It is the insecure who feel the pressure to sound so "sure" of  their own points and to even be contemptuous of contrary views.  One can begin, at least mentally, one’s own very confident assertions with the words, “Right now I believe that…” or “My own evolving truth is that…” and remind all that what is being said is not really being claimed to be the unchanging  absolute truth  for all to bow down to. And whenever we agree with any opinion from another person, let’s just say so, that we agree, and refrain from saying he’s right, as if we had the right to unilaterally bestow such judgment of rightness on any view.  Right?  No, you just agree. The challenge is to recognize and present our own views as a contribution to the conversation, a submission to its dynamic process, and not at all as the proverbial last word to end it. The mind  is said to be like an umbrella; it only works when it is open. If we are all thinking and talking with honest humility, that's the only time we can really be thinking and talking. As a mode of governance, democracy can only thrive and survive in the universal prac­tice of earnest conversations all around: am­ong stakehold­ers within each small community, among stakeholders within clusters of commun­ities; between   these   stakeholders  and the  government they legitimize  and  sustain; among   the    government functionaries working within their respective scopes and focuses of govern­ance; am­ong all citizens. Let no one who has any­thing to sincerely say – any view, complaint, observation, ques­tion or suggestion to articulate – be silenced by self-censoring timidity or by intimidation from the arrogance of others within the circle of human equality. Only a clear consensus in an obvious emergency situation may respectfully silence, for the time being, the voice of an insistent minority. To these Ethics of Earnest Conversations, both the Light­Share e-Mail List Group and the Lambat-Liwanag Network for Em­powering Paradigms are sub­scribed.  And this can only be advocated strongly, and adhered to, by their joint publication, LightShare Digest, and by the entire synergism community that it seeks to serve well.  Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

	.STAND-ALONE POSTS:
	Discerning Desiderata's Second Sentence From a Posting from Readdingz
Ding Reyes: "As far as possible without surrender, be on good terms with all persons." This statement, apparently containing a clause of conditionality, is the second sentence of the classic Desiderata. The clause, that can logically be read as conditional, is unfortunately also equivocal or ambiguous as to the very sense of the sentence itself. One meaning is. "Be on good terms with all persons; and as far as possible, attain that state without surrendering anything.". The other meaning, as valid as the first interpretation on the basis of the composition of the sentence, is: "Be on good terms with all persons as far as possible; that is, if you can attain that state without having to surrender anything." The other meaning, as valid as the first interpretation on the basis of the composition of the sentence, is: "Be on good terms with all persons as far as possible; that is, if you can attain that state without having to surrender anything." In other words, it is saying that you ought to seek being on good terms with other people as long as it will be on your own terms, To concede, to agree, to meet somebody else halfway, could be construed as tantamount to surrendering something to some degree. Let's think and rethink of the sense of the wiser or wisest lesson that one can derive from this second sentence of Desiderata, whatever grammarians say and whatever the author might have actually meant as its intended meaning in the first place. In an earnest meeting of hearts and of minds, persons exert best efforts to define their patterns of interaction according to what they both can and will choose to be the mutually-desired configuration of their interaction. If one or both of them would have to alter a first or previous preference, such shifting does not have to be viewed or felt as a surrendering of one to another, but a process of convincing to a position that is firmly accepted as the most logical and most fair to all concerned. It is on the basis of such earnest discussions that real unities can be forged and real, deep and lasting peace can be attained between persons, between groupings of persons or between formal entities. Let us further ponder this matter deeply, discern it in earnest, and rejoice in its divine wisdom! --"Readdingz" August 20, 2010 Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .STAND-ALONE POSTS:. Asking 'Why?' with Premature Ferocity From a Posting from Readdingz Many people would like to believe that reality is simple. You just have to have the right intentions and right decisions will follow. So, Humanity would be neatly divided between those who are forces of good and those who are forces of evil. So, let’s all be on the side of good and be good and everybody will be happy, right? Wrong. Let me change that last word in the previous sentence: “No, I don’t agree; I don’t think so!” Whenever I declare somebody’s statement to be “correct” or “true.” I have to be precise with what I actually mean. If I owned the laptop I’ve been using, and someone says I own it. I can be precise and say “He is right!” But what if the other guy expressed an opinion, a judgment? Could I simply say, “He is right!” Of course, I could say that and I actually often do. But in such times I am not speaking precisely, because what I should really be saying is “I agree!” (No, I won’t deliberately say “I agree with him, therefore he is right. I only fall into that line of reasoning whenever I forget that I am not a proclaimer of what is right and wrong for the whole world to listen and “be guided accordingly”; I am only a proclaimer of my own opinions that agree or disagree with other people's own opinions. ..........You may say I nitpick now on a whole lot of semantics and rhetorics, and I can go along with such judgement (“Yes, you’re right!” hehehe!) but if I don’t go into self-questioning at least once in a while, I might actually forget and hear (mistake!) my voice as “speaking the divine last word” as the ultimate judge of right and wrong without even being anywhere near the Biblical Tree of Knowledge. ..........People are often very passionate and overconfident about our own personal or organizational opinions and there’s nothing wrong with that, unless we forget that no matter how passionate one is or how “sure” s/he feels, it is still his/her personal view, albeit perhaps a well-studied opinion of a proven genius! Many agonizing hours have been spent in fierce quarrels over whose personal view is the real “divine judgment” in the contention. Recently, I expressed my vehement disagreement with a political party’s decision and its apparent premise and said without any qualifying words: “treason is on a higher plane than corruption!” Many expressed agreement with me. But to be complete and precise about it, I really should have said: “I strongly feel that they should have considered treason to be on a higher plane than corruption!” and carry no less passion and sense of confidence in the validity of my assertion. Or those who read me may have taken it as that, anyway. And it could have had the same effect as intended. Anyway… A question asked in earnest should be followed by a question mark. In oral conversations, the question mark is of course invisible but it should be perceptible in the intonation, body language and overall behavior of the one articulating the supposed question. In many instances, however, it “looks” more like a question followed by a very angry platoon of screaming exclamation points (“Why!!!!!”). This is often understandable but unfortunate. In a many cases, the mouth can only be pronouncing the word “Why” but the mind is trying to accommodate at least two thoughts: “Oh no! It can’t be! This would have very disastrous effects! This angers me greatly” and “I wonder why it happened” and “Oh no! It can’t be! This would have very very disastrous effects! This angers me so much I could explode!” So, while the curious part gets articulated in the word why, the anger part builds up fast that in the few nanoseconds it takes the mouth to pronounce the monosyllabic word, the question mark has transformed into an angry battalion of exclamation points. Now, the person is not prepared to hear any answer, because the question had been forgotten after getting drowned in a wave of judgments. Having no reverence for the unknown and being only terrified by it, we often have the tendency to dismiss as irrelevant what we still don’t know and proceed to judge because we For clarity of mind, therefore, we should remind ourselves to only ask questions with question marks – if we are still asking we do not know the answer yet; and if we are this angry, we might never know or understand it. And the ones being asked may have the tendency to overreact to the overreaction… so there goes your earnest conversation! Many questions are asked and passionately debated where at least one side of the debaters tend to dismiss the nuances that figure significantly in the positions of the other. In debates, this is deliberately done; in earnest discussions this happens unintentionally. For the sake of all involved, the quality of the outcome of the argument or earnest discussion, simple statements should not be simplistic sentences – nuances ought to be looked into, understood well, and weighed judiciously, whether or not it appears at all in the net resulting summary of the analysis. Usually, the nuances that are considered in the decision-making are assumed by one side to be “obvious to all” and assumed by the other side as non-existent. It takes time to find out exactly what nuances played in the decision-making and exactly how heavily they were considered and why. Again comes the charge of “nitpicking on petty considerations” and the more warhawkish among us grow impatient—“what are we waiting for?" Where’s the rage? why are we not yet in a quarrel mood yet of ‘punishing mood’? Why are we not forming a lynch mob yet?” Those who are not afraid that a lynch mob can be formed and agitated to success may have the tendency to deny that any problem exists. In the context of human tendencies so described, people in a misunderstanding tend to proceed more to the worsening of it rather than to solving it for the sake of peace and synergetic strength that a group would need to do its work or at least to exist in harmony. Some people feel that as long ay they can blame other people for a conflict situation within a supposedly friendly community they have no problem. Some others tend to thicken the wall between the contending sides by recruiting all invoved to take sides and be part of worsening the problem, instead of acting as living bridges of communication and dialogue and lead to resolution and reconciliation. Having reminded myself of all the foregoing points, and declaring my openness to be reminded of more, I feel ready now to proceed to ask my own questions on a wide-ranging conflict of views (that has spawned highly emotional judgments). Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .STAND-ALONE POSTS:. Inquiring More Deeply into Roots of Peace Culture By Bebot Sta.Cruz, a Mindanao-based environment conservationist and peace-builder To look at anything, like a dove sitting peacefully on a branch preening itself, with all eyes, ears, nerves, mind and hearts as a whole, completely requires energy. Energy that is not shoddy, dissipated mind, struggled nor has tortured itself with innumerable burdens to be one with the sitting dove. .........One cannot find truth for peace without seeing this "passion," a word derived from the Latin word for "suffering". This passion, for generations, has existed and has been experienced by all individual Masbateños. They have all that freedom-- to see, energy to live with it with their families, children, surrounded by all turmoil and violence. They have all the knowledge, the whole truth of the history of the culture of violence. Thus the children were given a choice and decided, to side with violators or with the oppress and become one to struggle and survive in Masbate. .........But for those who want a new life, a new beginning, they leave the island of Masbate and search for a new home. As an outsider who wants to share energy for peace, there is a need for knowledge, we have to ask, not just with curiosity but with all the passion, to understand completely where and how to energize the lost energy of Masbateños who want genuine peace and have it in their homeland -- or we might not know where our energy our passion will take us. ........ To start with my question, does the word “peace” or language of peace exist in the earlier tribal culture or customary laws of the Masbateños? Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .STAND-ALONE POSTS:. Peace Within, Peace Between, Peace Among By Shayne Merioles & Ding Reyes, organizing core team members, Peacecamp-Masbate 2010 May Peace be WITHIN you, and WITHIN me... May Peace be BETWEEN and AMONG us... May Peace be in the Conscious Living Oneness of the Earth, .....our planetary home and family! May Peace be in our every breath, in our every smile! Real, durable peace is dynamic peace .....in our Conscious Oneness, in our Synergy!   Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .STAND-ALONE POSTS:. Anything for Peace is Welcome Change By Marlene Damolo Howe: Anything for peace is a welcome change! Here in the US they removed the prayers and the wording of God in the Pledge of Allegiance to appease the non-religious groups or the atheist group. It seems that there is a strong resistance by the few and the majority gave in. I pray on my own and have my daily talk to God. Thank you... for sharing! Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  .STAND-ALONE POSTS:. Wisdom... Will... Work... for Peace! By Ding Reyes: For peace and all other noble advocacies we have decided to pursue, let’s remind ourselves well: “wisdom… will… work…” I suggest that we get reminded of these three words and recite them everytime we see the three W's at the beginning of any virtual address that we meet along the “information superhighway.” (A full article on this was written last August 2, following day after the blogsite launching of the Peacecamp-Masbate On-line Forum on Peace, and uploaded in http://readdingz.blogspot.com/2010/08/three-ws-on-internet-wisdom-will-work.html.) Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------