Pali is the language of the earliest collection of the teachings of the Buddha. And one key teaching is that of loving-kindness, for which the word in Pali is metta.
There is a wealth of Buddhist teaching, both from Siddartha in the Sutras ("Sutra" is a Sanskrit word, the Pali equivalent of which is "Sutta") and by various Buddhist teachers, ancient and modern, in traditional lands and in the United States.
While I am not and never have been a Buddhist, nor do I attempt to play one, on television or in electrons, I have to some degree been influenced by Buddhist teaching. I suppose as one who is a Convinced Friend, a Quaker by choice, it is not unusual that I am drawn to and influenced by the teachings of a tradition that also seeks to find non-violent ways of connecting with others.
So why write about this on a political blog?
We are potentially in a period of major transition in American politics. Here I refer not merely to the possibility of Democratic control of the two political branches (and thus potentially the ability to shape the judicial), but in the way that we do politics. To be certain, I am not so naive as to anticipate a political process absent some degree of conflict. But it is clear that part of the appeal of Obama is that he seems to invoke that part of people who want to strive for something better, something beyond themselves, something not provoked by fear but invited by something more affirming.
In approaching the subject as I do this morning, I in no way mean to have you infer that a Buddhist approach is inherently superior. There are clear aspects of what I wrestle with in all of the major religious traditions, although sometimes we cannot see the riches of our own tradition clearly until we have them illumined by the insight of something far less familiar to our thinking.
Let me at this point revert to the words of the Buddha on the subject. The following is from Sutta Nipata I.8. Since I do not read Pali, the translation is that of the Sangha (community)of Amaravati, as found at this site:
This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who seeks the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech.
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied.
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,
Not proud and demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!
Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings:
Radiating kindness over the entire world
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.
Certain parts of this jump out at me, for example:
Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
We should in our politics follow a path which does not seek to gain power by diminishing others. Certainly one lesson from this primary cycle is the danger of such a path, or rather, the wisdom of an alternative path. One reason we may have seen a "bounce" after Clinton's endorsement of Obama is that Obama had taken care to speak positive words about her. And we cannot heal our nation - or ourselves - if we operate through anger or ill-will, if we seek harm upon our opponents. After all, to fully heal this nation we need to do our best to bring all together, even those who might choose to operate in a different fashion. Perhaps this may seem incongruous, but at this point I think of the words spoken by Richard Nixon the day before he left the White House in ignominy:
Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
The next portion of what I quoted from the Sutta is also relevant on a number of levels:
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings:
Radiating kindness over the entire world
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
The idea of cherishing all living beings provides me with a moral basis of environmentalism. When I reflect on these words they illumine for me the words of Genesis 1:28 that are too often misinterpreted as a license to use and abuse for our own benefit:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Dominion means exercising the power of Lordship, and in that sense one acts as did God - for after all one also reads in Genesis that Man was created in the image and likeness of God. Augustine once wrote that while man was in the image he was walking in the land of unlikeness. We are not God, but we bear responsibility for that which God created, which he called "very good." Think of this command as one of stewardship, of care for that which has been entrusted to us, from which we can benefit but not at the cost of destroying it, denying it to those who come after us.
And if that seems too much, that perhaps you are not willing to cherish the mosquito and the cockroach, the rattler and the jellyfish, then at least extend it to one's fellow human beings. That would be a start, one which might greatly improve human society and diminish human suffering, whether directly caused by war or as a by-product of seeking power economic or political.
Although I have to acknowledge that the teaching above is far more demanding, for we read:
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!
Those born and to-be-born: our responsibility to future generations. At the simplest level, will those decision we make and we allow to be made on our behalf at a minimum leave a world for those who follow us no worse than that we received from our forebears? And do we in our society consider in our laws and policy "the weak or strong, omitting none?" Do we distinguish based on whether they are "the great or the mighty, medium, short or small?" Do we pay attention only to that which is before us (and hence often most like us) or to we care for "the seen and the unseen" with the latter too often being those at whom we choose not to look even when we cannot avoid encountering them?
Here I am reminded of the words of a man who long served this nation in public office, Hubert Horatio Humphrey:
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
There can be no limit to loving-kindness. The amazing thing is that when we open ourselves up we find that offering loving-kindness does not drain us, but rather energizes us. And certainly the outpourings of generosity we so often see in times of tragedy should be an indication of our capacity for this. The capacity becomes blocked when we allow ourselves to succumb to hatred and ill-will, and here I again remind you of the words offered by Nixon, words which seem to indicate his recognition of what he had done to himself.
I am by background Jewish. And when I read these words
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection
I am immediately reminded of the most basic prayer of Judaism - the SH'MA -
which begins
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
After one praises the glorious and eternal kingdom of God, one then recites - well, let me quote the English of the next part of the prayer:
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
And these words that I command you today shall be in your heart.
And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall speak of them
when you sit at home, and when you walk along the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up. . . .
I am a firm believer in the Wall of Separation Jefferson offered as an image in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. To me one need not have a formal religion in order to be a good and moral person. In my own exploration of various religious traditions over a period now of about 5 decades, I have often been struck by the common themes, the common aspirations and instruction I could find among them.
And in living into what is now my 7th decade, and now serving as one responsible for instructing younger people, I am reminded that the skills and knowledge we impart can be used for good or for ill. The firearm used to kill in war or in anger can be used to provide food or defend one's self, family or nation against evil. The knowledge of the human psyche and people's fears and desires for security can similarly be used to manipulate and divide or to bring together and heal.
I seek a politics of healing. I struggle with this, because I at times feel anger, righteous or otherwise, for what I perceive to be wrong. As I age I more readily accept the limitations of my own perceptions and experience. The Sutta warns us about holding to fixed views. Our politics must learn, be open to possibilities, be willing to listen to others.
Call it if you will basic courtesy, to acknowledge the needs and desires of others. Until we do, we cannot hope to come together in a common cause that benefits beyond our narrow perception. Perhaps it is acknowledging the humanity of others. Hopefully it recognizes our interconnection with the material world, sentient and apparently passive (although one who has suffered through severe weather or the forces of the ocean and plate tectonics may wonder what intelligence and feeling might possibly be behind such power).
Is it possible that we can in our politics be more human? Can we practice the principle of metta, of loving-kindness? Might we start with the words of Rodney King, "Can we all get along?"
Peace