I heard a story that once somebody tried to get Sister Theresa to join their protest against war or some particular violence going on in the world. To their surprise, she declined. Certainly the sister did not support war, they opined, so why would she not join them? She explained that she would not protest against anything; she would join them to promote peace if they were to so engage, but she would not activate against anything.
This practical example provides texture and feeling to the Buddha’s teaching, “I do not quarrel with the world.” It is, I think, fully free of judgment, opinion or view.
It strikes me that we, particularly Westerners, suffer from the affliction that we cannot let others have their opinions unless we approve of them. It is in English that we have evolved the uniquely begrudging stance to “agree to disagree”. It is hardly even bare acceptance as we maintain our rightness and righteousness and merely take the position that while your ideas are stupid I will surrender trying to make you understand how misguided you are. Through my great nobility I will allow you to exist with your foolish ideas.
A friend quotes a bumper sticker that struck him, “What you are thinking may be wrong.” It is not much better than agreeing to disagree, but it does give rise to a better proposition, “What I am thinking may be wrong.” What if I opened to the mere idea that you could, possibly, in some distant strange universe, be, perhaps not right, but at least not wrong? Might that open me to a new level of acceptance? Perhaps instead of agreeing to disagree, I might just notice that our perspectives differ and defer judgement over which perspective might be correct, or more correct, or point more directly toward the truth, or be less obviously wrong.
May that thought return when next I encounter an opinion. I could think, without any rash commitment, “what if you are right?”
Today, let me soften just a little. Tomorrow, let me remember.
