Which Side Should You Support?

By shian on 9 Nov 2009 under Odds & Ends |

What great spiritual truth do you seek,
when you are not truthful to yourself [and/or others]
over the smallest worldly matters?

- Stonepeace

When there is a conflict between two communities, both of which are part of a larger common community, the following tends to happen. Each side becomes defensive, for reasons right and/or wrong, consolidating information to validate their contrasting stances. These views are then presented to as many people as possible to garner support. Meanwhile, those unclear of the intricate rights and wrongs of the matter begin to form their own perspectives of the sub-issues involved, as based upon the official but almost always partial (to some extent) views from each side, peppered with dashes of personal pure speculation. The truth is, the whole truth is often found in fragments all over the place; seldom conveniently all in one place. It is hard to find anyone who is exclusively right or wrong. The last time Truth with a capital ‘T’ was available from a single source was when the perfectly enlightened Buddha walked the Earth, who embodied its totality in thought, speech and deed.

As the saying goes, ‘There are three sides to every story – yours, mine and the truth.’ And as Stonepeace put it, ‘As long as not fully enlightened, it is spiritually arrogant to assume one knows the complete truth of any matter.’ It is not at all far-fetched to say that most of the time, we fall short of realising the whole truth of even minor worldly matters, much more to say, major spiritual ones. Views presented, as long as from unenlightened ones, frequently entail some degree of prideful self-rationalisation for the sake of self-defense, even if it is embedded unmindfully. Fueled by delusion on one or both sides, many conflicts do arise out of clashing egos, including those which senselessly culminate in wars. With more to-and-fro-ing of opinions from both sides, plus the ones from the ground, the stakes and confusion increase. Even if there is some truth on one’s side, when there is resentment and loss of compassion, one has already lost spiritually – to that extent.

Official statements are often politically correct ones, not always wholly correct ones. The ones speaking the most loudly, with the harshest words are not always the bearers of the truth, just as the silent ones might not have ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ either. Confounding as it is, the antagonistic might be voicing some truth too, just as the quieter ones might have good reasons to withhold some truth. What do we do when we face dilemmas as such, which make us uncertain of which side to support? Hear as many views as you can and meet all the key persons involved on both sides to personally investigate for the whole picture. It is foolish to take sides based on a few views. There might be a need to help reconcile differences instead! Ehipassiko – the Buddha would expect us to inquire deeply too – on all matters of great concern, including the Dharma and the Discipline he taught. Ultimately, it is the Buddha’s teachings and our personal wisdom on how they should be applied that we rely on; not any particular personalities or parties. May all strive to live up to them harmoniously.

The wise suspend judgment for more investigation when they cannot judge.
The foolish rush to take sides when they lack grounds for fair judgment.

- Stonepeace

Comments

This entry was posted on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 16:23 and is filed under Odds & Ends. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

1 Comment so far

This is a well-written article. It is exactly because we are unenlightened, how do we really know the side we side are the Truth’s side. Therefore, is it necessary to side any side yet? Suspend judgement might be wise to do now.