Amboy, California
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
6:17 p.m.
Forgiveness is the fragrance the flower leaves upon the heel that crushed it.
-- source unknown
Perhaps it was Mark Twain who once reminded me of a form of that quotation. If I could improve upon it I might embellish it by saying “True forgiveness is the fragrance the flower leaves upon the heel that crushed it.” For there is a distinction between a forgiveness which “nobly” pretends, but which manages to keep insisting that a grievance has taken place, and a forgiveness which knows that nothing was ever transgressed in the first place. The latter forgiveness is the kind I want to practice.
Why, then, is true forgiveness so difficult? Both the granting and the asking?
Something happened last Sunday evening which brought this question up. As you read I hope you will examine both kinds of forgiveness with me, and take the opportunity to experience true forgiveness in some aspect of your life -- both the granting and the asking.
If you read the last blog you saw me happy and content on a Sunday evening, calmly waiting for Monday’s mail in Amboy, California a pit stop along the old Route 66, which bills itself as “The Ghost Town That is Not Dead Yet.”
Shortly after I had written that dispatch, however, I received a phone call from the other half of our team which had been moving forward along our pre-agreed route. Our original agreement was that each team would cover 11.1 miles per day, for a total of 22.2 miles for five days for a total of 111 miles per week. At this rate we would be able to cross the country in 29 weeks, with a few weeks off for R & R at spots, say, like the Grand Canyon. Since their team consists of three walkers -- an additional walker was added in the last week before we left Oceanside -- they are easily able to cover their 11.1 miles per day. In fact with three of them, they can even cover the whole 22.2 miles by only walking 7.4 miles each.
Apparently team RV1 was moving so well down the road that they were leaving our RV2 team far behind.
I was informed by a spokesperson from the group that they had conferred with each other and had concluded that there was not a good “fit” between our two groups and therefore had “decided” that they would be moving on without us.
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I was confused, bewildered, astonished, and “flummoxed” I felt as though I had been dealt a blow in my solar plexus, and had been floored -- although, of course, none of these things had actually happened. The communication appeared to me to be “high handed”: as though I was being “let go” from a job. But sinceI had never been hired, I couldn’t quite fathom how I could be fired, or who would have the authority to do so.
Besides, in life, I had rarely been the leav-ee, usually the leav-or. Perhaps it went back to a fear of abandonment so great that I determined always to quit long before I could be fired. This time, I had been blindsided.
I can understand how RV1 could feel that there was a “difference of style” between our two teams -- hence their phrase “not a good fit.” But I could not understand how a group of women who had professed to be committed to a new paradigm of leadership embracing so-called feminine values which (we had all agreed) the world needs so desperately -- could make a unilateral decision such as this -- which would not take into account consensus, team-building, communication, partnership, appreciation of diverse skills and talents, etc. and would be so lacking in compassion, as to be disinterested in the thoughts and feelings and needs of 3 of the total of 6 team members. It felt as though I (we) had been de-coupled from a moving train with not so much as a “by your leave,” and set adrift.
Indeed if our main mission statement is imagining a world where women are equally-valued decision-makers in partnership with men, what about the equal valuation of the women decision-makers on one’s own team?
Despite what appeared to me to be blatant hypocrisy, I did not try to appeal the decision in any way. Nor did I want to. I respected their decision and the autonomy which gave rise to it. On the other hand, the spirit and manner of the interaction, and especially the tone -- which was attempting to be “loving” and supportive, and not to be taken “personally” -- did not seem entirely authentic. I would have to examine that more carefully at a later time to determine whether the inauthenticity was coming from my side or theirs.
There was a period of about 20 minutes following the call in which I went through a whole series of emotions, feeling sad, angry, victimized, disrespected, devalued, and discounted. I decided to sit with the possibility that “Things are not as they seem,” and to apply one of the axioms from A Course in Miracles which always helps me to suspend judgment: “You are never upset for the reason you think.”
As a result of remembering this guidance I was able to witness myself having these feelings, without fully giving them credence. The turbulent feelings came and went, overseen by a clear commitment to stay focused, and to stay peaceful and joyful through it all. The latter impulses prevailed, and by the time Viveka returned from her frolic with the Amboy volcano crater I was able to report what had happened with a sense of playful enthusiasm.
Although I kept my attitude lighthearted, Viveka went through her gamut of feelings -- mostly indignation since she felt their decision was not only hypocritical but disrespectful. But by the next morning we were seeing all kinds of new possibilities -- not any of which were negative. We felt we had been liberated in a very real sense, and that only good could come of it.
My first impulse was to forgive Liz and Mary for what they had done. But I realized the inauthenticity of that, for it would have been the kind of arrogant forgiveness that still holds on to the grievance. What I really wanted was to be completely free to see the incident as causing no harm whatsoever, and therefore needing no forgiveness at all.
If there was any forgiveness involved, it would be me asking them for forgiveness for the sense of separation I had briefly felt, as well as forgiving myself for that brief interlude in which I had saddled them with hypocrisy and inauthenticity. In truth -- at least in my mind and heart -- our sole2soul mission goes forward and the partnership continues in good faith insofar as I remain faithful to its ideals and to my agreements.
Upon deeper reflection I saw that it could not have been an easy decision for them to make. So if any compassion is called for, it could come from me!
What this series of events will mean in practical terms, as far as the logistics and the design of the enterprise is concerned remains to be seen. Some very interesting ideas regarding the idea of sacred activism, and the return of the “divine feminine” are already beginning to bubble up as we return to the drawing board, under the guidance of Spirit.
