Wake Up Call #430: Working With Our Enemies
Hi everyone, it’s Judi Cohen and this is Wake Up Call 430. I want to talk about Chapter 13 of Pema Chodron’s book, The Places that Scare You, but it will take more than one Wake Up Call. Pema is so remarkable in her ability to take the teachings and nail them in just a few sentences. I wish I could do that but there’s a lot here, plus, I want to offer some suggestions for relating Chapter 13 to the practice of law.
In this chapter, Pema shares the “near and far enemies” of the Four Limitless Qualities, or Four Brahmaviharas. These are the qualities that either masquerade for, or are the opposite of, metta or lovingkindness; compassion; empathic joy; and equanimity.
Pema calls the chapter, “Meeting the Enemy,” and begins by saying, “the more we get to know [these enemies], the more they lose their power. For me that’s a powerful reminder. No matter how long or intensively I’ve been practicing, when I see these enemies in myself – and the enemies are attachment, aversion, pity, envy, and other unsavory qualities – I flinch. There’s a sense of these being not only the enemies of the Brahmaviharas, but also my personal enemies. Of course Pema says to look at it differently: “…as if we’re lugging around unnecessary baggage,” and we can “open up the bags and look closely at what we are carrying…[and] understand that much of it isn’t needed anymore.”
So gentle, so kind, and yet this is another warrior practice. Just like with so much else in the book, Pema reminds us that this work is not for the faint of heart. It requires commitment, intensity, and being ok with knowing the work will never be complete. Because as we now know, the very nature of bodhisattva work is that it is never done.
But we’re used to that because neither is legal work, is it? There is always more to do: more people to help, more causes to fight for, more justice that can be imagined and maybe even brought to bear. Our work will never end – we may retire, but the work will go on, and still, knowing that, we remain committed. We give 200%. So we are familiar with the level of commitment, and perseverance, that Pema talks about when she talks about the path of the warrior, including in relationship to “meeting the enemy.”
And more than that, we’re probably familiar with the practice of getting to know our enemies so that they no longer hold power over us. Once, maybe 20 years ago, I was negotiating a big industrial lease. I have a real terror of flying, and have had for years. The woman I was negotiating with was in Detroit, and it was the middle of winter.
This woman and I got stuck. Looking back, I can see how I could have solved the problem much sooner by not being so positional, not seeing her as the enemy, and not trying to be such a big hero for my client. But I didn’t see that then. I was dug in and so was she. And then I got a call from the client: get the lease signed by close of business, or get on a redeye to Detroit.
I found a way. I got the lease signed. Partly, by realizing that the client saw something I missed: that by getting both lawyers in one room we would realize we weren’t enemies, and we wouldn’t hold, or try to hold, so much power over each other.
So let’s look at those enemies. Let’s start with the near and far enemies of metta, lovingkindness or unconditional friendliness. Or as the great meditation teacher Ruth King says, “growing fat with friendliness.”
The near enemy of metta is attachment: transactional love. I love you but only because of what you have done or can do for me. I appreciate you, I’ll be friendly towards you, if you reciprocate; if you don’t, I’ll cancel you. I’m making it sound harsh but unless I’m paying attention, I’m often transactional. I’m counting. Or I’m ever so subtly checking to make sure I’m getting what I need or want, I’m getting mine.
Metta, growing fat with friendliness, is so much simpler (and, not always easy), It’s just appreciation for someone else. Not because they’re adding value to us, or, in our estimation, to the world, but simply because they’re another human. Pema says to think of a person like we might think of a flower: perfect even though maybe poisonous. We used to have incredible Nerium bushes on our property. Also, my partner treated a woman in the ER who used Nerium to make tea, thinking it was something else, and couldn’t save her: she died. We loved those bushes, and, we knew their capacity to kill.
The far enemy of metta – its opposite – is of course hate, or aversion. The obvious drawback to either is that they make us feel isolated. When I had aversion towards that opposing counsel, I couldn’t get anything done. When I hate someone for their politics, I’m walling myself off. But all is not lost! As Pema says:
…[R]right in the tightness and heat of hatred is the soft spot of bodhichitta. It is our vulnerability in difficult encounters that causes us to shut down. When a relationship brings up old memories and ancient discomforts, we become afraid and harden our hearts. Just at the moment when tears could come to our eyes, we pull back and do something mean.
And then she tells a story that sounds like it was meant just for us lawyers. She shares about her friend on death row who, upon receiving news of the death of his grandma, whom he loved, started swinging, because he was inside, and didn’t want his pain to show. He felt he couldn’t afford to let it show. So he’s swinging, and the guards start shouting, and they’re aiming their guns, and his friends are shouting and grabbing him and they tackle him to the ground and surround him to protect him. And all of them, all the prisoners, all these men on death row, they’re all crying. Every last one of them.
Imagine if we could do that: hold people – our colleagues, our clients, the other side – hold them and cry with them, letting it be ok to be sad, torn up, devastated – because we are, we just are – calling in the sadness, instead of calling one another out.
Attachment and aversion – the near and far enemies of metta, of love. Holding one another through the pain instead of turning away or expecting something back: that’s pure metta.
