A Modest Proposal Uncommon thinking
about common experiences Acceptance versus Agreement June 11, 2004
Acceptance and agreement are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive. For some time, I equated the two, and in doing so, blocked my ability to accept. When I understood the difference between them, I was then able to accept more and more situations and people. What is the payoff for accepting? What’s in it for me? For me and many other people, spiritual love is defined as unconditional acceptance - no conditions, no qualifications, no requirements - just simple acceptance of whoever or whatever is present in the moment. When I first began to “wrestle” with this concept, I struggled with reconciling how I could “accept” serial killers, despots, rapists, computer virus creators, SPAMMERs, and those whom I regarded as villains in general. How also could I accept horrible accidents, untimely deaths, fatal or debilitating diseases with no apparent cure, and events like the 9/11 destruction of the twin towers in 2001? It seemed to me that by accepting these people and events, I was also saying that I agreed with them, and there was no way I could agree with such terrible people and happenings. If agreement and acceptance are synonymous, then there was absolutely no way that I could love what happens in the world that causes so much pain, despair, and sorrow. Thus my ability to love was limited to that which I perceived as “good” - the special people in my life, beautiful areas of the Earth, dogs, and a great meal, only to mention some. Those are easy. Loving something or someone that is odious is a lot tougher. Some folks maintain that one measure of spiritual evolution is by observing someone when his life goes on tilt and nothing seems to be working. Adversity, it seems, brings out the best in some and the worst in others. I think that the “best or worse” result is a function of spiritual evolution. Following on that, I also think that spiritual evolution can be simply measured by how much I am able to unconditionally love and accept regardless of where I am or whom I am with. It is simple but not easy. So, I am back at the point of distinguishing between acceptance and agreement. Let’s look at agreement first… If I am in agreement with something, then I am indicating that I am aligned with it… that I support it and believe in it… that it is a “right” course of action. I agree with the principle that all children everywhere have a right to proper nutrition, health care, education, and nurturing. I agree with the establishment of world peace. I agree with the concept of universal human rights wherein all people are respected and honored for agreeing to live out still another human lifetime. I agree with honoring the Earth and being a good shepherd of it, and so on. All of these agreements necessarily contain acceptance as well. How can I not accept something with which I am in agreement? If acceptance is defined as simply acknowledging that something does exist and that from a spiritual perspective has the right to exist (that doesn’t mean it is “right” from my point of view) then agreement automatically embraces acceptance. However, the reverse is not true… acceptance does not mean agreement. Why? Consider the two aspects of acceptance in the preceding paragraph. First, there is the recognition that something exists. Seems simple, doesn’t it - maybe so, maybe not. I know that there are plenty of instances in my life when I stuck my head in the sand - the ostrich syndrome - not having awareness of what was happening, or perhaps more accurately, preferring on some level, to not have awareness. “La, la, la - there are people starving in my community? Well, I don’t see any of them - must be an unfounded rumor.” I cannot love that of which I am unaware, and I can certainly, to some degree, focus my awareness on that which I find appealing and attractive, that with which I can agree - how convenient! If I operate in that mode, then surely acceptance and agreement are the same, and for me there is no “versus” to be reconciled. Unfortunately, my spiritual evolution has thus far resulted in my awareness of far more than when I was comfortably sleeping. I can no longer tune out the unhappiness and misery that is rampant in so much of the world. “La, la, la” does not work anymore, so I cannot limit my acceptance to only that with which I agree. Enter the second aspect of acceptance: “the right [of whatever I am aware in the moment] to exist.” This statement is admittedly dicey and will doubtless not sit well with some. How can something like rape or murder have a “right” to exist as well as the persons who perpetrate them? This question is often asked in many forms and venues . It is a question with which many people wrestle (as have I) in the course of personally examining and defining their spirituality (in contrast to being told by someone on either side of the question about what to believe). The answer lies, I think, in one statement: “We have no idea of what is in the best and highest interest of anyone including ourselves.” An expanded corollary is, “We have no knowledge of the ‘life drama’ that others staged for themselves prior to coming into a life, and thus have no right to judge what happens to them or others that are involved.” It is difficult, but necessary, for me to accept terrible people, deeds, and events. It is necessary because I sincerely wish to unconditionally love as much of my life and the people in it as I can. I do not have to agree with what happens, but if I am to continue to evolve spiritually (and yes, I am far from finished), then I believe that my willingness to unconditionally accept is mandatory. Learning to live with people and events with which I do not agree is one of my life’s greatest challenges and consequently greatest rewards. My Modest Proposal to you is to reconcile your understanding of acceptance and agreement, and unconditionally accept and love as much of life as you can. It is what spiritual evolution is all about. May you discern with compassion… Ron
McCray
|