Saturday, October 17, 2009

Hua Hu Ching - Verse 15

Verse Fifteen
To the ordinary being, others often require tolerance. To the highly evolved being, there is no such thing as tolerance, because there is no such thing as other. She has given up all ideas of individuality and extended her goodwill without prejudice in every direction. Never hating, never resisting, never contesting, she is simply always learning and being. Loving, hating, having expectations: all these are attachments. Attachment prevents the growth of one's true being. Therefore the integral being is attached to nothing and can relate to everyone with an unstructured attitude. Because of this, her very existence benefits all things. You see, that which has form is equal to that which is without form, and that which is alive is equal to that which rests. This is the subtle truth, not a religious invention, but only those who are already highly evolved will understand this.
~ Translated by Brian Walker ~
While reading this verse, it hearkened me back to something I wrote within the first month of establishing this blog (2005) on the subject of tolerance. Here's what I wrote back then:
There’s a program, “Teaching Tolerance”, that’s been around for a quite a few years. While I certainly salute and applaud the motivation behind the development of this educational vehicle, I seem to a have a real problem with the choice of the word tolerance.

From my humble perspective, teaching people to tolerate others sends an unintentionally negative message. The whole point of this program is to motivate each of us to be more accepting of diverse cultures. In my book, there is quite a bit of difference between acceptance and tolerance.

To accept something is to agree to receive it. When a person agrees to receive something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they must like it or embrace it unto themselves, but it does mean they are affirmatively building a bridge between the person making the offer and themselves.

The concept of acceptance does not necessarily involve any hierarchy. Whether you’re the king/queen or a slave you can choose to accept or not accept something offered.

Tolerance, however, is a completely different animal. In order to be in a position to tolerate something or someone, one must be ABOVE or SUPERIOR to the thing or person to be tolerated. In other words, tolerance is TO ALLOW something or someone to exist and the only way one can allow something is if they exercise some measure of control over the person or situation.

Consequently, I believe the unintended subliminal message of the “Teaching Tolerance” Campaign is to tell people that they should tolerate others because they are better or superior to the people or cultures they should tolerate. And, if you think about it, that’s not a very uplifting nor positive message.

Far worse, if you happen to be a member of the ethnic or cultural group to be tolerated, you are being told that you are inferior to the people who should learn to tolerate YOU! It’s like being hit with a double whammy. The predominating group ALREADY thinks you ARE inferior and now the very campaign that seeks ultimately to lift you up is concurrently reinforcing the idea that you are INDEED inferior.

As the Tao Te Ching teaches that we are all part of one universal cosmic force, no one is superior or inferior to another. With no hierarchy, the concept of toleration doesn’t need to be learned nor promoted.
My opinion on this subject hasn't changed.

This post is part of a "miniseries". For an introduction, go here.

2 comments:

  1. It's a good way to put it to accept not tolerate.

    Allan Watts mentions how he'd like a life partner to be sincere in their love and not serious.

    These are not subtle differences in language but very valid points.

    Hierarchy is one of the worst inventions of man and your note to accept not tolerate fits the more holistic model :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Hierarchy is one of the worst inventions of man and your note to accept not tolerate fits the more holistic model :)"

    i disagree. there are plenty of heirarchies in the animal kingdom, it is not an invention of man.

    i agree with what you say here, TRT. however the verse seems to be advocating an overall impartialness which is for the most part a beneficial thing. however, it has its time and place, and there is a time and place where impartialness is not something to strive for. at some point impartialness becomes distance. humans are wired to love those closest to themselves the most, and strive to protect them above most other people. this is not necessarily selfish, it promotes a healthy family/friend system. however one need not be exclusive in loving and protecting those people (or other beings) alone.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.