You may have been in a relationship - family, work, marriage ... - like this... I call this an I'm-damned-if-I-do, I'm-damned-if-I-don't - in psychology, we call it a double-bind. In a romantic relationship, I would argue, loudly, with the other. She seemed to enjoy yelling, and I would join, which accomplished nothing. I decided to stop it. I said such behavior was of my past - including, a norm in my family of birth -, and I was not going to live that way. After I refused to argue - I called it fussing - but only to interact peacefully, I was accused of not loving the person. But, then, I was told how much I loved her. Soon, I realized whatever I did or said, it was a dead end, again and again. I decided to do nothing. In time, I was accused of an affair. No matter what I said, the other was convinced of it. So, I did nothing. Deciding you cannot live peacefully with someone is sometimes a wise choice. To try to live peacefully with them is unwise.
Give your best is present, for that is all you sometimes can do. Then, not able, you accept it. When you have given your best, you have given your best. If you cannot live peacefully with someone, that does not mean a failing on your part. That does not mean you were not kind enough. That does not mean you are wrong. That does not mean you are acting from psychological projection or displacement. That does not mean you are unspiritual. There comes a time to stop giving your best and shift to acceptance. You may not be able to love some people up close, but you can always love them at a distance.
Trying to love some persons up close can become unloving. So, to continue trying to live at peace with some persons can become an act of aggression, regardless of the good intent.
Your first intent is not to get along well with others, to like them, or to have them like you. Your first intent is to love them.
* * *
A Buddhist story tells of children on a beach. Each made a sand castle and said, "This one is mine. Don't touch it." Each defended her sand castle and would not let another child stand nearby.
Curious, one child came to a sand castle and kicked it over. In a rage, the child who had made the sand castle began to beat the other child. She called out to the other children, "Look, my castle is destroyed! Help me punish him, giving him what he deserves!"
The other children came over and joined in beating the child. They hit him with sticks and kicked him until he lay motionless.
Then, each child returned to her sand castle, began building it, and said to any child who approached, "Stay away! This is mine! Don't touch my sand castle!"
Evening came, and darkness began to settle over the shore. Before the children left for home, some kicked over the castle, others mashed it with their hands, while some walked away, having lost interest in it altogether.
One by one, the children returned home. By dark, the tide had come in and washed the castles away.
* * *
Everything is impermanent... a key Buddhist teaching. Life teaches us this, too. We see impermanence all around us. We see it when looking in a mirror. What people fight about and over will not last.
Yet, things - including ideas and ideologies - lead to much human suffering. From possessiveness, person wars with person, nation wars with nation. Families fight over inheritance. Greed. When death comes, what does all the fighting matter? All our castles... washed away.
This possessiveness can be seeing oneself as right and the other wrong. Relatively, seeing the other person's conduct as wrong is okay. Yet, one can do this without being attached to her perception of herself as right. To cling to "I'm right" is suffering. Attachment to one's sense of rightness - righteousness - is avarice. Just look at politics and religions... how infected with this poison of clinging to a sense of righteousness. As I have written, we are in trouble when being right is more important than being love ... such a world of competing righteousnesses is hell.
We can, also, be greedy intellectually: in what we think is true. This dogmatism is prevalent in religion and politics. It leads to aggressiveness in attempting to prove others incorrect in their thinking and ourselves correct. Love feels no need for such dogmatic hostility. Love is invitational. Dogmatism is elitist. To have beliefs is healthy; beliefism is detrimental to peace among us.
* * *
Galatians 5.13-15, Christian Scripture -
For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don't use your freedom to satisfy your false self [little self; to be egoic]. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. ... But if you are always biting and devouring one another... watch out! Be careful - you could destroy one another.
* * *
The Galatians scripture parallels the above Buddhist story. When possessiveness captures us, it turns into warring. Many people get energy from warring. The spiritualized self does what she can to live at peace with others. When unable to live peacefully with anyone, she feels no need to do so - she finds it within herself and with whom she can enjoy a mutually-edifying connection. Her refuge is in herself.
You are responsible for this one precious life. We each are accountable for choosing whom to associate closely with and how to remain aloof, as much as possible, from unnecessary interpersonal conflict, which often is simply emotional drama or toxic personalities.
Finally, there is one beach, and each castle is made of the same sand. When we realize that, most, if not all, warring will cease. While others may not be prepared for the warring to end, are you? If so, choose it for yourself... find the refuge within yourself.
*Brian's book, An Ache for Union: Poems on Oneness with God through Love, can be ordered through major online booksellers or the publisher AuthorHouse.
