Charan ji,
Sometimes I too do not like the prospect of having to agree to disagree. However, on hindsight it would appear that this must be due to attachment on my part. Besides there are times in which it seems that this is the best option to take, since continuing any discussion is likely unproductive, or worse, that it would cause both parties to be engaged increasingly, in unwholesome activities of mind.
Our problem is that we forget to take into consideration the quality of mind and instead become very involved in our own projections with regard to both that person out there, as well as the subject matter holding our attention. And would not this be due exactly to attachment having taken control throughout?
You might want to consider the following:
Our interaction with other people is almost always with either attachment or aversion at the root. Even towards those who are close, this in fact is not with kindness, friendliness or goodwill but rather selfish affection. But we don’t realize this, perhaps because on the other end, there are people towards whom we feel ill-will which then deceives us into thinking that we do have the wellbeing of the former group in mind. In truth however, it is all about me and my feelings. This is why it is said that while the far enemy of kindness and goodwill is ill-will, the near enemy is attachment. And this is very hard to see.
Likewise when it comes to compassion. What we know and invariably go by is due to the influence of craving and ignorance. Not knowing what compassion is in actual experience; we instead feel pity towards other people but mistake it be the other. Pity is here, the near enemy and is in fact an expression of aversion. Aversion must be accompanied by unpleasant feelings and this is what moves us in such kind of situations. We ‘do not like a particular situation and wish to change it’, it is clear that this is aversion and attachment at play, but ignorance makes us believe instead, that we have compassion. But the truth is that compassion must be accompanied by either neutral or pleasant feelings and why so? Because with compassion is an element of kindness and the object in this case is the wellbeing of other people. And you can’t have the good of the other person in mind, while at the same time, moving away from the situation.
Again here, what sometimes deceives us is the feeling of cruelty that we otherwise feel in a different situation. This is the far enemy of compassion, which can cause us to believe that any pity arisen must be the real thing, when in fact it is the near enemy of it. And this is worse, since we then take what is all about me and my feelings as being a concern about other people.
And then there is what comes under the name of ‘understanding’. Sometimes in thinking about other people in particular situations, when considering whether or not we can help him and deciding finally that it is better to leave it be, this may in fact be due to cold indifference but taken to be equanimity. The cold indifference is in reality an expression of ignorance which is accompanied by neutral feeling. Equanimity is also accompanied by neutral feelings; however this comes with an understanding about cause and effect which is karma. So if one’s evaluation of the situation is not in fact in line with this truth, then this must be due to other considerations, ones driven by ignorance but giving the impression of understanding.
In conclusion, that we think about other people and the situations in which they are in is normal. What we lack in the understanding of what is at the root of such thinking. To perceive that other people have wrong attitudes of mind is one thing, and kindness, compassion and equanimity should be encouraged here. Our problem however, is that we are motivated by attachment, aversion, ignorance and worse, wrong understanding. This latter is what is behind thoughts about being ‘responsible’ for other peoples’ actions and is a rather dangerous position to take.
Goodwill acts rightly as much as the situation allows, so does compassion. When the situation is such that nothing can be done and in considering about karma, something over which no one has any control, this can cause one to detach from the situation and pay attention to whatever it is that is at hand. To go on and proliferate about what is necessarily past and gone, and to project a future situation in which certain things will happen, is just more pasture upon which ‘self’ feeds. Understanding all this, would you still insist on changing other people? Is one of the problems not that we all want to change the world, and this includes Hitler and Stalin?
.
