| | |

Changing the Paradigm to Find a New Way (and “Opening to Grace”)

A student and friend sent me a link to an article posted by the Center for Consumer Freedom alerting consumers that excessive levels of heavy metals have been found in the reusable bags being sold by some of the big box retailers and supermarket chains.  The analyst reached the conclusion that consumers should be allowed to use disposable plastic or paper bags [environmental consequences ignored] so that they are not forced into the untenable position of having to use bags that are manufactured with unacceptable levels of toxic ingredients.

It is fantastic that the folks at CCF advised people of the potential hazards associated with the manufacture and use of certain types of reusable bags.  What I do not follow is the absolutism of the “either or” choice presented:   poisonous bags (forced on you by environmentalists) or disposable plastic or paper bags (with all the attendant hazards to the environment).  Why does the bag you use have to come from the grocery store?  The types of retailers identified might have seized another retail and advertising opportunity to make cheap, hazardous reusable bags in nations with cheap (i.e. inadequately paid and treated) workers in countries with lax environmental and consumer safety standards.  But this is just another example of how corporations prosper at the expense of the health of the planet, as if the worth of the stock of corporations — the part that is separate from the world in which the corporation operates — in itself is the highest good (that’s a discussion for another day).

I write about this article because it seems to me to be a perfect example of how staying within paradigms, choices, and societal constructs presented can keep us in the kind of ignorance (avidya) that prevents us from being in alignment, from seeing the good, and from responding in the highest.  I am sure you, as can I, can think of far too many other examples of how if we stay with the question as it is framed, can prevent us from finding a peaceful, loving, healthful solution.  The choice here is not bad for the environment and your kids (or pets) reusable bags or bad for the environment disposable bags.  The choice is between bad for the environment bags and reusable bags that made by you or someone you trust not to use poisonous materials.

I have been carrying my own bags on a progressively more consistent basis since I was inspired to invite people to participate in Earth Day when I was in junior high and high school in the 1970s.  The photo shows some of my favorite carry bags.  From left to right:  (1) the day pack I bought in 1984 to carry my law school books, which were very heavy; it cost maybe $20 and it is still going strong; (2) cute organic cotton bag with “make love, not war, haight-ashbury 1968” silkscreened on it; I get complimented on it whenever I use it, especially when I turn down super cool disposable bags at fashionable stores in NYC (“no thank you; I have my own bag”); freebie canvas bag from Barney’s Coop; cannot be sure that it was made with union labor, but am pretty sure it isn’t one of those toxic bags described in the article.

Next time you are struggling with what seems like an choice between Scylla and Charybdis, invite yourself to soften, to open to the bigger picture, to open your heart and mind as wide as the widest space of meditation, and ask whether you are asking the right question.

Similar Posts

  • | | |

    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.

2 Comments

  1. If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same:.
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;

    -Rudyard Kiplin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.