Ethics and Reconciliation Council of Zen Center. Our speaker, I just want to say a few things. We planned a series some time ago, and so given the events of the past days, it seems especially important right now to be talking about reconciliation. So I'm glad that you're all here. I just want to show you this document. The Ethics and Reconciliation Council was formed to help enact the principles in this ethics statement, and you should be receiving one of these if you haven't already. Have these gone out yet? So my name is Laura Burgess and I'm a member of the council, and I'm very happy tonight to welcome Alan Sinaki. And he's told me that family life is a great realm for reconciliation and conflict.

[01:20]

He also plays a mean bluegrass. guitar. It's not so mean. A non-violent blue flag. So welcome, Alan. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming. Thanks. Am I correct in hearing that Reb had a bicycle accident? Oh, gee. Well, I'm really sorry to hear that. Somehow that folds into all that's happening. I'm not sure how. I guess he has to resolve this conflict between one part of his hip and the other part of his hip. It's not really so funny. I think where I want to start out tonight is in talking about

[02:22]

the root the internal root of conflict and how we look at that as practice and then move out from there and I also I really feel like I'm probably going to ramble but not too long because I don't usually ramble for too long but I don't The notion of reconciliation and conflict resolution right now is a tough one for me. And I think it's a tough one for many of us, given what we're experiencing in this country and in this world. And a kind of ordinary rules by which we think we live. seem not to apply so easily or fit so comfortably.

[03:28]

And we were having a discussion this afternoon at BPF. I mean, people look to us for a kind of leadership in seeking peace. we would like to provide that. We had a meeting where we just called in a bunch of people who we're close with and discussed, well, what do you want to do? We know what we're capable of within the limited resources of our office and our staff, but there's the necessity to draw in all kinds of people. And there were two questions that came up And maybe we can come back to them later, because actually I'd like to leave a fair amount of time to discussion. One question is the container in which anyone can feel safe to at least express what they're thinking.

[04:50]

Often, in Berkeley in particular, there's a kind of pernicious presumption that we all think the same good thoughts. And we don't. In fact, I'm not sure any one person thinks the same good thoughts from moment to moment. To create that safe container, not to create a presumption of agreement, that kind of stumped us. How can you open up a discussion? Actually, a woman who does some of Joanna Macy's despair and empowerment work had a great idea. But when I thought about it, I realized it was really good if we had some kind of sitting or just bearing witness in public, that the only sign that she would hold up was one that says, Buddhist willing to listen.

[06:08]

Which actually, that strikes me as extremely effective. So that was one large question. that came up. Another large question that came up was does anyone of us have a clear or coherent sense of what we should do as a nation to pursue a course that is the least violent, that is the least harmful to all beings. That's not something abstract and high in the sky, but actually is policy.

[07:13]

And that also is fun. Because anyone, if you're on email, you call it swamp duty, all of these positions, all of these papers, every one of which is coherent and cogent in some way. But actually among all of those analyses, I don't see much that looks like guidance that seems realistic. And so that's what I feel up against. That's why, in the way, I feel hesitant to speak. But actually, I'd like to go and invite you to the discussion.

[08:14]

A number of verses. to express attention in what we practice. The great way is not to pick and choose.

[09:20]

Only don't pick and choose. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make smallest distinction, however, in heaven and earth are infinite. very much no opinion will go against me. To set what you like against what you dislike is a disease of mind. So that's pretty strong. And the other verse is from Dogen, from the Bodhisattva's Four Methods of Guidance, where he says, The mind of a sentient being is difficult to change. You should keep changing the minds of sentient beings from the first moment that they have one particle, one particle of realization, to the moment that they attain the way.

[10:26]

So that's a different sentiment. It implies... The first verse, the way I hear it implies... Don't try to change anything, but don't be attached. I think that the mind that is changed is the mindless. actually in that whole work our lives and live our lives together that's not in versus in faith mind it's putting

[11:50]

absolute and strong position. And then I think that we're talking about how can we use this? How do we really work with this? We could say, have no life at this night. And this verse doesn't say that, but the whole piece is about what we do, what the Bodhisattva, the inspiring Bodhisattva practice is. to release herself from these preferences. So I think that we talk about reconciliation and the process of conflict revolution. basis of it as probably other people understand.

[13:42]

Thank you. listen, first of all, to what my experience is, what I like and what I dislike.

[15:36]

And believing, having faith, in fact, that in that process of listening, there is the possibility of changing the mind, at least, first of all, this entity. And... What I've experienced as me, I've been reading actually a really excellent book that is called Bloodlines. It talks about ethnic conflict and about terrorism, and it was actually recommended by my friend Joe Bobbler. And what he writes, he talks about identity.

[16:49]

And they talk about identity in a kind of different way than we might talk about identity. Identity is relatively, in these psychological terms, identity is a relatively late stage of development, of psychological development. And what he quotes, The psychiatrist Eric Erickson is saying, identity for a self or for a group is a feeling of persistent sameness within oneself. And we all know what this is like. And we also all know that this is exactly what we're taught is elusive. We know there's this feeling.

[17:50]

But what happens, you know, in adolescence and in our younger years is that we develop this kind of identity. This is what I have. [...] inherited from our own experience. They are the rules that have children in relation to their families, siblings, and social care.

[19:00]

They are rules to a whole group of their culture that's passed away from their generation. what I was experiencing as a child in school that was babysitting.

[20:01]

And he would be here. a fairly stupid drive to try to figure out how many Jews were there in the room. The weirdest place to have done that was, boy, it really didn't work so good there. But when it was there, yeah. So that's just an example of this planet, I think.

[21:27]

a persistent feeling of persistent sadness within itself. He does not say it's the reality of persistent sadness. It's just the feeling of persistent sadness. So it has a transition. Transition doesn't necessarily have its hooks up enough. And so, In that letting go, there's relinquishment and also the process of repentance.

[22:40]

This is all the internal process of conflict with me. I've been studying for the last couple of years with a teacher, Shodal Harada, who recently that he may have done that was hurtful. And that's part of, I think that's part of this process this internal process of conflict-based solution, this repenting and forgiveness. This is internal work.

[23:41]

Forgiving yourself first and continuously over and over again. And as you do that, we allow ourselves to be ourselves. We allow ourselves to have whatever feeling arises, and to be able to look at it and not be driven by it, not be a prisoner to it. So we unhook ourselves. In forgiveness, we unhook ourselves from holding onto conflict or holding onto hatred, which doesn't make much sense because it just causes us pain. unhooking ourselves from the pain of any afflictive emotion. And in that letting go, one of the things that Bolkhan writes is that humans cannot accept change

[25:02]

without warning what has been lost. As humans we seem to crave intimacy, sometimes regardless of what So there's a loss of it as we let go. And that's quite difficult. So if you pair that with what Dogen says, that the mind of essentially being is difficult to change, well, yes, because when you change, you have to deal with this sense of loss. You have to mourn for it.

[26:05]

You have to deal with it. We have to deal with it. I have to deal with it. It's something different. Something different. Something different. In another verse, Tolkien says, When Dharma does not fill your whole body and mind, you think it is already sufficient. When Dharma fills your body and mind, you understand that something is missing. So we really want, we sort of like to fill that hole. And every, just every energy of the society, of the media, of the things we consume is devoted to filling that hole and saying it can be done.

[27:06]

And if anybody can do it, we Americans can do it. And I think that there are places in the world where they don't necessarily believe that in the same way as an ideology and also perhaps where they might think that we're filling it with their labors or their resources or at their expense. So the challenge in dealing with the internal conflict, I believe, is to be able to have this negative capability to be able to live with a lack, to live with this sense of what's missing and realize that in the very experience of what's missing, the pain of it or the joy of it or the rest in it, that we're really alive.

[28:24]

My friend Santikaro Bhikkhu, Thai Theravada monk from Chicago, has laid out the Four Noble Truths of Conflict Resolution. And the first is, and this is all kind of obvious, so instead of the truth of suffering, it's the truth of conflict. That conflict is... a basic aspect of our lives and we have to recognize it. The second noble truth is the source of conflict. What is the source of it? The source might be claim, desire, or you might

[29:31]

configure it as emotional reactivity, or if you're, you know, in a social context, you could say political reactivity or, you know, reactivity of any sort that may then manifest as something structural, you know, a reactivity that manifests as misogyny or I thought it was amazing when Jerry Falwell, who the day after blamed the bombings on abortion rights activists and homosexuals. There's a kind of interesting projection. So that's the second noble truth, the truth of the source of conflict. And the third truth is that there's a cessation of conflict, a cessation of suffering, a cessation of conflict that interestingly brings up the pairing, the intimacy of peace and conflict that actually only

[31:02]

in the context of allowing conflict to arise, can peace arise. So only in the context of really experiencing our suffering, investigating our suffering, finding a cause, then we're liberated from suffering. And then there's the path, which is the fourth. Noble Truths. And in that case, the path that he outlines, I didn't take notes on this, but it's essentially the same. It's the Eightfold Path. Right understanding or view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. But he just turns it a little so that we're looking at all this in the context. of the conflicts that we live within ourselves and within our societies.

[32:07]

So there's another sort of practice methodology. So then I think we move out from there. Once we've done this work, each of us, I'm sure, is doing various kinds of conflict resolution in our lives, in our families, negotiating with our children or our parents or our siblings, with our friends at work, all of those venues. You know, the challenge is first to listen, to be willing to listen. And that seems to be the hardest thing to do. You know, when you listen to, let's say if my son throws a tantrum, it's very hard to stay and listen to him, to stay on point there, and stay there long enough and steadily enough so that he can come around to expressing what is painful in the situation.

[33:23]

And yet that's the most effective way. When I have the patience to do that, then we can... come to some place productive. And things can shift for him. Things can shift for me. And I can see it. For that moment, I can see it from his perspective. And when I see it from his perspective, then I get to unhook from that dislike, from just enough already. I don't want to hear this. This is not fun for me. But it's actually just... It really demands staying there. So we all do this work in small ways and it has its failures and its successes. There's a lot of failure and I've learned to live with that although it's not easy.

[34:30]

And I'm sure that many of us have that experience, particularly in our jobs, or if we're in any kind of setting where we're listening to people or hearing people, or trying to mediate between people who are experiencing some kind of suffering, often we fail. I mean, at Berkeley Center where I live, I get asked to participate, help people who are in conflict. And a lot of the time, and also at BPF, and a lot of the time, my experience is, when it comes right down to it, they actually don't want to talk to each other. And you have to accept that. And just be available. And maybe just being available might be the best thing you can do, but you can't make someone else's conflict disappear.

[35:35]

And we see this on a grand scale internationally. You know, we think of the people who were maybe most inspiring to us as peace activists. We think of Gandhi or Martin Luther King or the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh. that actually in each case, although they're tremendously inspiring, the conflicts that they have dedicated their lives to have not gone away. In a sense, they're failures. But what we admire, I think, is that how deep their principles are that they are willing to engage and engage and engage and keep coming back based on the faith that they have and the principles that they have without losing heart, even though the conflict may not be resolved, even though the conflict may not be resolved within their lifetime.

[36:58]

And that, I think, is a real It sets a high bar for us. I'm kind of inclined actually to stop and open up here and take discussion rather than go into kind of more detail about techniques or perspectives on larger social conflict resolution, because some of you actually may know more about it than I do. And also, I know that many of you, all of you, know how to work with this conflict that I've been talking about, the one

[38:00]

that's internal within us. And I think maybe in discussion, we can get at how that translates into activities, action, conflict resolution in the world at this particular juncture. So I'd like to invite thoughts or comments or questions. I had read a few days ago that Jesse Jackson was thinking of going into the fog line. I don't know if that... I'm a little unclear about that, whose idea that was. Whether it was his idea or he was invited. Yeah, I don't know.

[39:11]

I think I probably shouldn't say any more about it. I wanted to thank you maybe for the benefit. earlier for your statement that was one of the emails I think I got four or five left and I really appreciate it so I just wanted to thank you for writing that and for acting so quickly with the DPS response I seem to recall that Frank Heavey went to Kosovo for a sign that said American Willington City Oh, is that right? That may be. That could be. Just did that practice. I thought you might know more about it. No, I don't, but I know that she's been really effective there.

[40:12]

And what's been effective in Fran's work has been just allowing herself to be kind of a pole. around which people could orient themselves and be present. So if she would just stand there in a kind of neutral, open, willing-to-listen mind, then in the same room, Croat and Kosovan and Serbian women could could gather. And they could begin to see what they had in common as women, which was a strong uniting factor. And I think that's the gift.

[41:16]

And she's gone there a number of times. I think she was on her way there recently, just as this was happening. But I think that's... What Fran is willing to do, and this is something that's also in this book, Bloodlines, that I think is very interesting, is not to presume that we are all one. This is a big mistake. And it's a mistake in Berkeley. I was talking with someone earlier, you know, where we've had talks in the Zendo, And someone will say something in all instances. Well, in Berkeley, we think such and such. Well, it's not true. There's a complete variety of what we think. At the same time, in some of these highly charged situations, in order for people to get to a feeling of safety, ability to express what is threatening

[42:27]

or fearful to them, they have to be granted the space of this group identity that they have, you know, rather than have some kind of presumption or umbrella of we're all human. Well, yeah, we're all human, but, you know, there are wounds between cultures that are ancient. There are wounds between cultures you know, in the case of the Serbians and the Kosovans, you know, it goes back to the 13th century, and it's still, it's alive. You know, there's this time collapse, and those wounds are present. I think those wounds are present in a lot of, in a lot of ethnic struggles. So, I think what Fran is believed to do is not wipe out those differences. but allow those differences to be in the room. I think that's really powerful and really important to create any kind of safety to open up.

[43:34]

Because then maybe, once you start airing those, you can have a real argument. You can get to some real issues and some real feelings rather than fending each other off. speaks to what's disturbing me the most and I kind of look at it and somehow understand it but this rising up of the feeling of being Americans and the kind of identity of that and when we feel wounded I felt wounded more by those people dying than I felt by other people dying so the connection you know I mean I feel it I felt it in my body too like you were saying like There is a disturbance in this whole identity that I have of being an American. So I feel it, but it seems so dangerous. It seems so dangerous to just let it run, which it's doing. I know that I can stop it, but I kind of want to say we're all one in the light of this, we're Americans because of the force, of the power that we have in this

[44:49]

on this planet to destroy and harm and continue and hurt people. So I'm very... I don't know how to find the shape of that mind and, you know, sort of say, yeah, it's maybe a good thing that we're all feeling this way, and then maybe it can shift. I can't quite encourage it, like you're saying, to blossom to its fullest extent. Because it seems so scary to me, so dangerous. It's probably pretty good to be scared in this situation. I mean, I think that it's a terrible price that people have paid. But to me, I wrestled with some of the same things. and yet the fear makes it pretty vivid, you know, and makes it, it sort of raises up, at least for some of us, and I think for a lot of us, I think for a lot more than those initial polls were letting on in, you know, in the first weeks or so, it makes us really question, what is this identity?

[46:14]

You know, how is it not... was three or four weeks ago. Nothing is taken for granted in the same way, which brings out both best and worst. So if the fear brings, if it doesn't just nail you to the spot so you can't move, but brings about a process of examination, I think that's helpful. You've been talking about the healing power of listening, and I feel in listening, providing that listening, whether to a friend or in some kind of reconciliation process, there's such a strong influence to me that I often feel to give advice, which isn't always so helpful.

[47:22]

And I wonder if you could say something about that in your experience, especially in working with other Buddhists, how you listen with an open heart and an open mind in a healing way that doesn't polarize people or push people away by turning into life-giving. For me it just means really being patient and reining myself in. I notice I actually have opinions about everything. I'm very opinionated. You can ask my teacher. But the more one does it, the more one sees that in most situations, advice is really not helpful. And just to rein that in, first of all, it's really good practice for me to contain myself, to not be...

[48:25]

of myself, you know, and to be willing to let things fall apart. And so that's what I try to do. Sometimes there's advice to be given, and you have to make a judgment call. You know, sometimes you can actually say something that puts somebody, helps somebody get back on track. At this point, I feel like I like to be pretty confident. that it's going to have that effect before I say it. So for me, in the formal practice context, you know, it's just been year after year of learning to be quiet and contain myself. And it's a real challenge. But I think it's helpful because it then allows other people the space to find out what they're feeling.

[49:31]

Or if you're in a large setting, you know, a meeting, say, you learn to kind of trust the wisdom of the group, you know, and really listen to that. Sometimes the group is not wise, and sometimes you may have to actually stand in opposition to the group. But generally, at least in our sanghas, there's a lot of wisdom, there's enough wisdom to go in, and things don't go too far, too badly off track. This time, there's a lot of words on it, and this journalist, you know, drove across the country, and interviewed people, and his question was, are you ready? And what I was most shocked about with interviews with people was how open they were with him.

[50:36]

And really, I think, didn't, they gave him complete confidence. You know, they just, they really spoke from their hearts. And I was really frightened, actually, by the things they were said. And I had something to say. I don't know if I could get in that conversation. But I think they felt... like he was so open, they didn't know where he was coming. And he had this very, he was just very curious, you know, and I think it's that, it's what he's listening to them, is that he was very curious and interested in their side. Right, and his affect was probably pretty, pretty even, you know, not flat, but just, even where they felt they could say what they wanted. This is a really key point in any kind of conflict resolution.

[51:38]

There's a story in Volkan's book where he was with a group of mediators who were mediating a pretty harsh conflict between Azerbaijanis and the Armenians. which is an old one. In fact, it was after there had been a terrible earthquake in Armenia. And when that happened, the Armenians, there were Azerbaijanis who donated blood, and the Armenians would not accept it. They would not accept Azerbaijani blood. That's why he calls us bloodlines, actually, because it comes down to really primal kinds of fears. But what happened in this particular situation was they had a whole lot of international resources, I think through the Carter Center, that were going to try to offer a mediation. And the airport in Armenia... No, the airport in Azerbaijan was closed, so they had to fly in somewhere and they flew in at the same time as...

[52:56]

I think the Azerbaijani delegation, and then they drove together to Armenia the next day, and that was it. No mediation. They couldn't trust them, but they had been fraternizing and hanging out for a night, and they felt that their views were corrupted, which I don't think was true, but the issue of trust really depends upon, you have to build this strong sense of even-handedness and neutrality, that you have to build a sense that you're open to just listening in a very even way to what's being offered, and then working with that. You know, later, as trust develops, you can begin to come forward, I think, as yourself.

[53:59]

but it'd be really cheerful. You mentioned the issue of creating a safety in the situation so that people would feel free to have a varying view to not just the agreement, but the charity agreement. Yeah. And I think that's a pretty challenging thing. I feel like we've fallen into that. I've fallen into that as you know. I think there's something that I'm not quite in line with that. dare not speak, it's very powerful in that kind of group setting where there's maybe some potential for some conflict. If you would disagree, then that would be conflict rather than conflict might actually be there already and there's no response, there's no... Right, it's not expressed. Yeah. So where does that say to them come from? My feeling this afternoon was that the most safety we could create or we could tap into is actually within our religious communities.

[55:19]

That in an intimate religious community, people know each other. They kind of know this person's like this, this person's like this, and yet there's a real intimacy there. And I think that it goes for church communities or mosques or Buddhist centers. And so it seems to me that maybe that's the venue in which we begin to have honest discussions. And I think we've had some of that at Berkeley Zen Center. You know, when somebody makes a kind of categorical statement about, well, in Berkeley we think such and such, somebody said something. You know, somebody said, you know, please don't make presumptions about me. When Mel said some semi-informed things about Islam,

[56:26]

Somebody said, oh, wait a minute. And he appreciated that. So there's some trust there. I mean, I think that's short of a kind of structured situation with a mediator. This is the kind of safety that's available to us We have more of it maybe here and in our various communities than is really available to most people. But it has to be encouraged and tried. I think that's where leadership of the community can really encourage it. Sometimes it has to do it by just saying what you think. I just remember, again, in his first lecture that Mel gave after September 11th, he said, well, my first response was, let's go get him.

[57:38]

And then he thought, first of all, well, wait, who? And second of all, he didn't wish to think that way. He didn't think that was a reproductive way to think, but he recognized that that kind of rising. I think it's sort of like what Sisu was talking about. You know, we have this kind of gut feeling. I had, I mean, the sinking feeling when I saw the buildings going was also, was not just grief, but also anger. But we have to be able to own these things. And there has to be safety to do that. So it's, you know, it's up to you and and every other person here to dare to do that, to actually, in that case, and this is where it runs somewhat against the grain of, you know, versus on the faith mind, that in order to set aside what your preferences are, or your likes or dislikes, you may actually have to say them out loud.

[58:54]

and let other people know what they are, you know, because this is not, our practice is not just an internal one. If it was just an internal one, we would be sitting in a cave, you know, but the practice that we have from Suzuki Roshi and the Soto Zen practice is a practice of intimacy, of contact. So it needs that honesty and exposure. Is there anything else, is there anything anybody has on their mind? Does anyone know any great, have any great policies for our government?

[60:02]

Yeah. We feel that certain relationships are very tenuous and how it's related to long-standing things. I feel like you're talking about something Can you give an example? It feels like there's some specificity there that I think would be helpful or an example.

[61:14]

I don't know if you could make something up. Just being in a relationship with someone in Kathy. Yeah, it's not honest. Yeah, I think so. But it's either that or nothing. So I'm just wondering yourself what you meant. He might. He might.

[62:18]

I mean, in most of these international situations, they do need help and I think in a lot of relational situations we need help in order to create a sense of safety and I'm sure a lot of us have had this experience where we've been negotiating very painful things with a partner and where difficult things have to be said and yet if they're witnessed by somebody that one trusts. It's somewhat easier to do that. And then it can be worked with. You know, then you can maybe work with the differences. And sometimes that brings you together, sometimes that brings you apart. That's, you know, somebody thinks so. But if you can work with it, then whether you are ultimately

[63:23]

unified or separated each person can be integrated and that's we need to be we need to be integral to within ourselves and when you're holding on to something that you know in your heart is not true then it you know you end up being split off from yourself. And this is, you know, that's really hard way to live. Something else I wanted to say, if I can just change it, I realized my own state of mind these days, I just, I sort of wanted to... That's what it's been to prison for all.

[69:22]

I think it's college, it's a wonderful experience. That's in the bottom. And we work together. And there's no way that these ancient people who are here now have to be good for what

[71:24]

I mean, what I, I, I don't think, I think, there are a lot of, there are pluses. They perfect. Also, as a New Yorker, I was in New York two years ago, and I grew up there, and when I stood in the 50s and looked up, I just said to myself, this is not okay.

[73:22]

And I've known that for most of my life, so it's It's true, for me, what we say. Also, being Jewish and your family in Israel, I have some deep genetic lineage here also. But for me, for me to practice within the whole is just to understand at some cellular level that it's a culmination. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I actually agree with you. And I was pointing to I think that the nexus is vast and it's not just focused on the Middle East. What I hear you saying is this is not okay looking around you in New York. I think it's very crucial to hold that and to work practically with the reality of who is alive now.

[74:25]

But from the point of view of my own practice and my the exactness of how much we can actually understand it's insufficient. Yeah. Thank you. And still we need to solve this. Right. And the solution may be here. I think that the solution is here. If the solution to, you know, where we began was with looking at the conflicts, the internal conflicts, That applies to us, each of us as individuals, it applies to the communities we live in, it applies to the country that we live in, and we move, I think we move out in circles from there. Yeah. I was struck that Mirjuliani said to the United Nations today, basically saying, we shouldn't have to understand why the terrorists did what they did.

[75:26]

The most important thing is to experience a female. I think that's, you know, I think that's really, I think that's a very hard gap, bridge, to try to talk to people who feel so frightened and so personally agree. And to be told that, I think what they hear is what happened to us is less important than what we have done to them. And that, I think, continues to create this us and them sort of situation. And I'm curious about your thoughts about how to bridge that gap. Well, I think that's right, and that's really challenging. And perhaps in New York, the most important thing is to go to those funerals.

[76:29]

And yet we also have the rising of the other responsibilities that we have in the world. If it were, you know, when the loss is in your family, you take care of your family first, and then you move outward from there, perhaps. But I think that it really calls for a lot of patience. That this is why I really, I'm grateful that things seem to be going slower than at least the first round of saber rattling implied. You know, and we don't know what's, we still don't know how things are going to unfold, but yeah, I think that feeling, feeling the loss and taking care of the loss is a first-order business.

[77:31]

I'm just wondering how much the internet may be affecting some of this loan, because I've talked to a lot of my friends, and I've written a lot of things that have gone around where people are encouraging each other to write to their congressmen and write to their senators and write to their representatives. how they feel. I was actually wondering if maybe it was having an effect. Maybe. I guess I also think that the people who are in the government, whether one likes them or not, whether one voted for them or not, mostly they're not real stupid. And particularly the military. And the military, I think, really understands cause and effect in great detail. And so I don't think they're too crazy to go in and do something precipitous that can really unravel big time.

[78:43]

But we still don't know what's going to happen. But I do think that people writing, people speaking, editorials in newspapers, op-ed pieces, There's a lot of it. It's like I was saying, our ability to look at ourselves, I think, has never been keener. Certainly really different than it was in Vietnam. It's really, we're very close to talking about fundamental issues, and a lot of people really are. And it's mostly, it's really being led, I think, in... in the different churches and faith traditions, but also by, you know, people of, you know, by deep thinking people, deep feeling people all around, which is, you know, encouraging when we keep our fingers crossed.

[79:48]

I feel like the more this unfolds, I feel like the less I know, you know, I feel like everything that I really came to believe, I'm just not sure anymore. You know, it's kind of amazing. What is it you don't know? Well, what the right thing is to do. Ah, that's good. And also, I guess, something about just the causes of it are so tangled, like usually I would say, you know, peace, anti-war, retaliation, and even this feeling that I'm hearing a lot, say, that, of course, somehow we've inflicted so much harm on the world that it's coming back on us. And I really see that at the same time it's coming back in this uncontrolled way, of course, upon innocent people. And there's something about this emotion or statement about wanting to wipe out, you know, the statements they made about wanting to hate the West or wipe out Americans and Jews. Like, I don't know, I keep, there's always this little voice, like I think,

[80:49]

when the AIDS crisis started. And there were some people who really believed, and this was very upsetting to us, they really believed this was retribution for gay people getting gay sex. So when I hear some of these words that I'm hearing about this retribution for the sins we've committed on the world, I almost feel like you can't ever explain evil. And I don't want to stereotype a group of people, but I feel that when something like this is generated. I feel like our country could convert and make peace right now, and we don't know if this urge for destruction will stop. So I just keep having this, I don't know, response to everything, and just this deep feeling that, like America, we do get very puffed up, you know, and very, I don't know what, proud. And here we have, you know, it was brought up on this lore of the Wright Brothers, so if they're playing, And here's the skyscrapers, you know, and it's all being used against us.

[81:52]

So there's this, you know, almost feeling of being caved in. And the Pentagon, it's funny to me that nobody is talking about the Pentagon and all the people killed there in this kind of atmosphere. I've been around a lot that the Pentagon is evil, but, you know, somebody who I lived with for 10 years, his father worked for the Pentagon after World War II, which he was kind of dismayed by, but what he was working on was cobalt. And because of the computer language that people like him were working on, we have the internet. So it's, I'm like, well, what was, you know, was it all evil what they were doing in the Pentagon? You know, just the human beings that were killed there, even if we may not support what they're doing. It's just, like I said, I mean, I just can't, I can't keep to the kind of stances, you know, that I used to have. And also, how does the rise of this culture came up with this desire for vengeance?

[82:54]

There's this, somebody called into, it was NPR, it was a Latin American man, and he was very upset, and he was kind of saying, you know, look, my country's been really messed up by your country. How come we don't get suicidal? And, you know, I mean, not that they should, but it's actually a really good point. You know, why is there this certain culture of revenge and that suicide will get you to heaven? Well, what comes to mind, just by way of insufficient response, is that it really makes me want to pray for the people who are... There are people who actually do have to make decisions. And they are no more or less intelligent than us. They have a lot of information, but I don't think that that information makes their decision-making process any easier than if we were to sit in a room and it makes me feel like I really want to pray for their wisdom and their vision.

[84:12]

I was feeling grateful listening to one of the gentlemen, I'm not sure which one it was, who had been a businessman and head of a big corporation, and I felt like his way of thinking was very complex, and he was used to thinking in complex terms. He wasn't an attorney who was kind of coming down on the right and the wrong side, and with a lot of rhetoric. It was very, and I actually thought, oh no, that's good. Let's have more of that kind of complex thinking about a complex person. Well, they're there, too. I mean, all these people are in the mix, regardless of what political strike they may be. Well, maybe there's time for one more question or comment, and we should probably end. Yeah? I just restrained me. I don't know what the intention was exactly. There seems to be at least some intention for a lot of disruptions. And a lot of, you know, it's making a big statement, which is kind of violent act.

[85:20]

But it just, it just sounds in my life. I wonder if they knew they're going to propel all these people into self-examination. I mean, maybe so. You know, maybe there's some feeling of, like, you wake up, you know, death. Oh, I think so. But I think it's, um, it's a funny thing you're going to tell for. It's so far away. And I think there's... the process of looking at ourselves, I don't know, most of my experience in California is sort of being in the blue screen, so I can't tease it out, you know, is everyone doing this? Is everyone thinking about what are our connections? Well, I don't think that everyone is, but my friend, my, yeah, right, right. And people, there is a meeting every hour who are employed in the hospital to just come and be briefs and people are still going on.

[86:20]

And you might just, I'm going to call a lead before we go, but also my, wait, let me just, one thing, just my friend Maya just got back from Montana and she was a little nervous to go there, but she felt that the discourse was on the same level there. They weren't Buddhists. I wasn't doubting that, but I feel like the country, we were, I think that's kind of part of the moment is that everyone is ready to look at whatever they do. I actually looked at him in California a few days after that. Away from Miranda and I. It wasn't exactly a war-like response. I didn't feel people, uh, be propelled by, uh, self-examination, particularly in a large part of rural California.

[87:34]

And it's, uh, individuals may think they're recruiting, but I talked to quite a few people there. It wasn't a feeling of outrage, either, like, you know, let's go bomb Afghanistan from that. It was a feeling of grief, as much as anything. But, uh, I didn't hear all this that long going on in particular, of that type anymore. It was very kind of a uniform response of grief, and, like, we don't want this to happen anymore. Maybe there is now. Well, or maybe grief opens the door. Maybe we can hope that grief will open the door to reflection. And also we have our work cut out for us in sharing what we think, regardless of what it is, and taking the risk to share it.

[88:35]

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The article that Linda mentioned, which was Alan's response on behalf of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship for the attacks, is on the table.

[88:48]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.75