Today’s post is a wee bit lengthy – so read in chunks if you must.  But it’s a topic that’s weighing heavier on my heart than most, so it seemed wrong to divvy it up or truncate it.  Thank you for reading, and as always I appreciate your responses. – JT

I heard a marvelous story recently by Franciscan monk Richard Rohr that pinpointed my highest aspiration.  I’m not sure if I can define it precisely (the highest aspiration) with one or two words.  But Rohr’s account helps to bring it closer.

Rohr told us about a pilgrimage he had taken to somewhere in the Far East.  The main purpose was to visit a centuries-old monastery where many monks live, pray, and train.  Over an extended period he was able to meditate, participate, and, mostly, observe the traditions and practices of these particular monks.  

A wonderful storyteller, Rohr painted a vivid picture of their simple yet eclectic lives and the philosophies they examined.  It would be difficult to categorize a religion or belief system for them; but suffice to say the crux of their training was to think clearly about the world’s issues in the face of what is evidently true in nature and ourselves.

The process of graduation for these monks was particularly astounding.  It would make defending one’s senior thesis seem like a stroll in the park.  Let me try to describe it as accurately as possible.

After an indeterminate time – sometimes several months, sometimes several years – monks would be deemed ready for graduation.  The major event in this process was a long, grueling 1-on-1 session with the Master.  The graduate-to-be would sit in a small circle in the middle of the room.  Surrounding the student in an outer circle were many fellow monks.  

Then began something that can only be called a Major Grilling of Difficult Questions.  

The Master, of course, was the Chief Griller of Difficult Questions.  Any topic in the world was fair game, including homosexuality, abortion, legalism, death, love, taxes, speed limits, vegetarianism, Mac vs. PC . . . you name it.  

The Master would then interview the student for many hours on end.  Interestingly, it was a requirement that for each question, two answers be given – one for the ‘pro’ view and one for the ‘con’ view.  

For example, if a question were asked about exacting revenge, it must be answered in terms of “Why is exacting revenge good?” and “Why is exacting revenge bad?”

PRO ANSWER:  ”Well, revenge is good because the one getting the favor returned probably deserved it.” etc. .

CON ANSWER:  ”Revenge may have some redemptive value for the victim, but forgiveness is a higher law.” etc. .

After each successful response, the Master would signal and the attending monks would clap loudly with shouts of approval.  But what constituted a “successful response” was the real kicker.  They weren’t being graded on their answers.  

In fact, there was only one way they could fail the test, and that was if they stopped smiling at any time during their answer.

Smiling throughout the examination was the only way to pass the test.

IT’S ALL ABOUT DISPOSITION & CHARACTER

When writers write – be it a blog, an article, or a book, many times it’s not about “teaching”.  It’s about “thinking through things”.  This blog, for example, has been my think pad on slowing down, managing emotions under fire, and viewing problems as teachers.  This story about the monks was in perfect stride with that.

There’s no time or space here to dive into “Life Is What You Make It” and the spider web of arguments that ensue.  But what was so enjoyable about that story was the disposition of the monks.  The key wasn’t having the right answer, it was having the right disposition.  This is an answer in and of itself.

This made me think of how vitriolic and offensive we can get when we ‘offer opinions’. 

As I approach the Age 40 Tollbooth of Life, it seems I’m moving a lot more toward Both/And thinking, and further away from Either/Or.  The offense of this, at least on the surface of my planet, is that someone who believes nothing is true has nothing to stand on.  That’s not where I’m going though.  Honestly, I do believe in absolute truth and right vs. wrong.  There is value in Socratic deliberation, fiery debate, and lengthy soul searching for real answers.  

But most of the time, when we argue about the world’s problems, we end up damaging each other, assuming malice, and even hating one another.  Quoting Eric Beck again, “we can be as right as rain but bring nothing but death to a relationship.”  

Shouting louder doesn’t make us more convincing.  And people rarely change views within an argument or debate.  They just feverishly think of rabbit trails, counterpoints, or excuses.

Does a calm disposition solve everything?  Probably not.  This is because change involves pain – on an individual basis, on a global basis, and everywhere in between.  But why not embrace that flow with a better disposition?  That is my aspiration . . or a top 3 item on my Bucket List.  

The key, though, is whether the disposition is real or not.  I want one that is genuine – i.e. a product of reality, not a dormant volcano that could erupt at any time.  Not a tire with 14 patches that could burst at any moment.  

OK.  SO WHAT?

There’s that question again.  Previously in this blog I’ve offered this formula:  STORY>MORALE>PRACTICE but nothing occurs to me right now (other than Practice Practice Practice).  I’m calling for your opinions on this.  What do you think?