Similar Posts
Afternoon Nap
A brief afternoon nap is one of the benefits of working from home.

What About Love? (and Conflict Management Training)
Last week I attended a work-place training entitled “Conflict Management–Dealing with Difficult Conversations in the Workplace.” I do not do much training at work; the several hours a week I spend doing professional reading generally satisfies the needs of my position. When the offer for this two-day training came into my inbox, I decided that it might be useful. I am responsible for a project that involves several different offices in multiple government agencies all of which have perceived differences in agendas and jurisdiction and real differences in expertise and personality. I am also about to get another new supervisor, and people in my division have been edgy.
The training, which had about 15 attendees even though it was the Tuesday and Wednesday before Thanksgiving started simply enough. We all identified ourselves by name and job function and where in the agency we worked and then took the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, which helps give a broad general idea of how one typically reacts in situations that involve conflict. All pretty straightforward workplace training stuff. Then the facilitator suggested that most conflict between people (and within ourselves) arises when our feelings of worthiness are or are perceived to be threatened. My ears perked up. “Anavamala,” I thought. It’s just like what the tantric philosophers teach us, that the unreal cloak of unworthiness is what leads to suffering and discord.
The workshop continued. We did some roleplaying and engaged in discussion to consider how we can better lead the best out of each other and ourselves, whatever type of negotiator we are. It was interesting to see how this fairly diverse group of workers — young, old, experienced, brand new workers of varying levels of seniority in the agency — were able to be engaged and brought together in exploring these issues, but nothing was particularly surprising. It was almost time to break for lunch on the first day, when the facilitator asked, and then let drop the question, without discussion or seeking a response, “what about love?”
“What about love, indeed?” I thought. That’s a word we do not hear in the workplace unless it is in an interview and someone claims to love their work, or it’s idle conversation and someone declares that he or she loves a sports team or a restaurant. The next morning I commented privately to the facilitator that I thought it a great question, but was not surprised, given the context, that he had not discussed it further. He said that he would bring it up more, and he did. He suggested that when we love, we are more willing to allow, respect, and listen to differences of opinion; when we love, we are also more motivated to resolve conflict in a way that serves best those with whom we are in conflict. This teaching made sense for most of the participants with regard to conflicts with friends and family, but it was harder for them to see in the context of the workplace because they did not think of love (as this society has come to classify it) as something that is part of the workplace.
How can we bring love into our non-intimate relationships (although I would argue that in some ways, the workplace is very much an intimate relationship as it so deeply relates both to our sense of purpose and to our survival)? The tantric teachings suggest that there is a universal ground to all being, one aspect of which is, in essence, love (prem). When we recognize that we are all made of the same stuff and that an aspect of the universal is love itself, then we are invited to see the unity in diversity and to respond in the highest in the face of difficulty or challenge. (Quakers similarly teach us to recognize the light or good in every being and to treat all as divine). Truly loving universally does not necessarily come naturally and can be a challenging and advanced practice , but it has been my experience that it is a practice that is worthy of all our relationships, including those in the workplace. It may be too much to ask us to like our co-workers, but seeking to recognize that they are worthy of love can go a long way to making our work day a brighter, more productive, more effective, and more compassionate place.
Yoga for Gardeners (a little more detail and a request for questions)
At the Yoga for Gardeners Workshop, I will be ordering the workshop into (1) yoga to prepare for a session in the garden; (2) yoga pauses to do intermittently while gardening; and (3) yoga post-gardening. I’m off to enjoy the bright sunny day, to volunteer at The Lantern, and to take care of a neighbor’s cat, but I’m really enjoying getting ready for the workshop.
Feel free to send me question, as a comment to this post, and I will do my best to incorporate what you want to know into the workshop and/or the blog.
Please remember that I will be giving a portion of my profits to support the Youth Garden at the National Arboretum. Even if you cannot come next Saturday, do please consider supporting one of your local, teaching gardens.
Kate Swift, Inherent Sexism in Language, and the Bhagavad Gita
When I read Kate Swift’s obituary yesterday, it lead me to think more deeply about a recent conversation I had about the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita, not surprisingly, is required reading for most yoga teachers. It is an integral part of the history and philosophy of yoga thought and practice. It is, though, about a battle in the middle of war, in a time and place where a woman’s highest and best (and arguably only role in life) is to be obedient first to parents and then to husband. Purity, obedience, and beauty (as decided by society) are the great virtues of women. As a dialogue between a male warrior (Arjuna) and a male incarnation of the deity (Krishna), all of the spiritual and social teachings are presented in terms of men and males, right down to the pronouns. The translation that was being discussed was that by Juan Mascaro. As a mid-twentieth century translation by a Spaniard at Cambridge University who has lectured on “Literary and Spiritual Values in the Authorized Version of the Bible,” the translation no doubt perpetuates (without any specific or willful intention to do so) the inherent sexism that is also found in the English language and in the Bible and its notion of God.
The question raised was how a book that perpetuates sexist stereotypes could be required reading to be a yoga teacher. (See my previous blog entry on how we, as yoga teachers, can rely on a book that is primarily about war.) How would it read, it was suggested, if all the pronouns in the Gita were changed from he to she? The person raising the question said that making this change made the spiritual guidance more accessible to her. For me, shifting the pronouns from male to female does not address the challenge because I do not believe in spirit that can be given gender. I read the Gita and other yoga texts in two ways: (1) as historical and literary/philosophical documents that are products of the author’s time and place in history; and (2) as a source of universal human truths. The Gita, as a dialogue between a warrior and a male avatar of “God,” does not have much place in the ideals I hold dear. Neither the caste system nor the roles for women espoused in the text support my own beliefs about equality, justice, fairness, or love. The extraordinary teachings of yoga, though, transcend the history out of which they arose. To do justice to the yoga texts — and not just the yoga texts, but the great teachings and texts that are an integral part of our social fabric — we must both recognize their historical context and be open to learning what has transcended history and cultural boundaries to make them living words.
In attempting to make the shift to a modern interpretation that allows for “feminism,” I know many who try to address some of the challenge for modern readers by saying that we all have characteristics of the masculine and the feminine, and so we can read the guidance in the texts as being valid for both sexes. The problem I have with that is Kate Swift’s point. If we label various personality traits and characteristics as being elementally male or female, we are still perpetuating sexism through linguistic bias. It is not enough for me to make the warrior female and allow her “male” characteristics. What I think is that all human characteristics are gender neutral. If the teachings are not to be biased when we as teachers transmit our reflections on the texts to our students (after recognizing how history has done it), then we need to say that all people can be assertive or passive, strong or sweet, rigorous or soft, etc, but not just say that some are masculine and some are feminine and that in having all of these traits to some degree, we are showing that we are both god and goddess, masculine and feminine.
Or we could just not do any labeling at all, instead concentrating on the truly universal yoga teachings of right action, selfless service, and deep abiding love–none of which have anything to do with gender.
Spam Compliment of the Day ( and the Art of Teaching Yoga Asana)
You make it entertaining and you even now manage to help keep it wise.

