I am a Buddhist practitioner.
I am also a survivor of abuse.
Something that I have struggled with since I’ve been a small child is the sense of “submission” that so many religions, spiritualities, practices, etc emphasize within their dogma.
In the best of worlds, that submission is highly theoretical and practical at the same time and emphasizes submission as a quality that brings you closer to “truth.” It means (in general): submitting to the reality of the world so that you stop struggling against “the will of god/the basic truth/etc” and as such, you have the space to become closer to “the truth.” Submission makes you strong because it uncovers “the buddha” inside you (if you will)–and what could possibly be more powerful than indescribable ever changing force?
In the worst of worlds, that submission is completely stripped of all theoretical, practical and “higher being/god like/basic truth” qualities and becomes a way “isms” control oppressed people.
For example: As a screwed up pick and choose sort of Catholic, how many times have I seen priests counsel abused wives to “just take it” because submission is a godly quality and part of accepting the reality of the world?
***
Something I finally realized just within the last week: You can not submit and “be humble” until you have rebelled and been proud. You can not submit until you have the choice NOT to submit.
Jesus isn’t our “savior” because he submitted to what he submitted to–he is our “savior” because he had the *choice not to* and chose to anyway.
Harry Potter isn’t a “hero” because he defeated Voldemort–he is a hero because he had the choice to walk away from the fight that he knew would claim his life and chose not to.
What would either Jesus or Harry Potter be if they didn’t have the choice? If they just did it because they were told to?
***
What does this mean to me? Part of the huge struggle I’ve had as a Buddhist practitioner was comprehending what “stop struggling against the basic truth that the world sucks hairy balls and it always will and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
How could I stop struggling against that? When my abused ass is part of the “basic truth of life sucking hairy balls”?
When you are submissive without the *choice* to not be submissive–are you submissive, or are you abused?
And is the problem with “religion” (in the very broadest all inclusive sense of the word) really so much submission, or that there are a bunch of men in charge that have very conveniently hidden the fact that “choice” is an intimate part of “godly submission?”
***
I’ve been thinking a lot about Tina Turner lately–and how Buddhist practice was such an important part of her confronting abuse in her life. And how submitting to the recognition that we all die and if Ike killed her, she’d be ok–was so different from submitting to Ike. How one type of submission made her powerful and strong and able to walk away from abuse and how the other submission landed her in the hospital.
I don’t think it was by accident that Tina became a devout practitioner after she decided enough was enough with Ike. She didn’t have to leave him, she didn’t have to confront him–she just had to know in her heart–ok. That was it. That was the last time.
But if you don’t ever reach that “that was the last time” moment–can religious practice *ever* be anything more than experience of and in abuse? Or ‘finding comfort’ as you live with unchallenged abuse?
I am at the strongest most powerful I have ever felt in my life right now. I feel joyous and free–I feel liberated.
And again, I don’t think it’s any small accident that I have just reached a “ok, that was the last time” moment.
Oh, and that this fat ugly ambiguous poor brown girl also climbed a goddamn MOUNTAIN. Three of them, to be totally specific. And now I have been thinking about all of the amazing things I ever did, and that I never recognized were amazing because I never thought I could do anything amazing. That what I did was just “survival” and I did it because I had to–because I couldn’t *possibly* do anything amazing, right?
I feel like I have let go of a struggle. I have submitted to a reality. And in doing so, I have uncovered that powerful patronus inside of me that can’t ever be worn down. That can only be polished to shine more and more brilliantly.
And I owe this reality in myself to a practice that I have struggled with for a long time–because I believe in humbleness and submission as admirable and amazing qualities–but but but but but….how can I be humble and submissive when all that’s gotten me is my ass kicked? How can I “look inside myself” to understand my anger–how can I “not chase after the person who set my house on fire“–when that person is also beating the shit out of me, telling me that if I report his ass he’s going to kill me?
You can’t “submit” until you have experienced “not submitting.” You can not uncover and shine that beautiful you living inside of you until you know you have the right and have CLAIMED your right to do so.
(as a side note: when I say “until you have the “choice” not to” I fully recognize the complications of “choice” and how we could argue on and on about “can you ever REALLY have choice while living under patriarchy” etc–to me, that argument is a bullshit argument that takes up too much space in the overall world of “theory.” “can you ever “really” have free choice while living under X” is a question that is completely disconnected from the reality of women who don’t have the luxury of non-action.)
ETA: by way of clarification: The “don’t chase after the person who set your house on fire” analogy/metaphor was written by Thich Nhat Hanh in relationship to “how to control/focus on your anger.” The basic analogy/metaphor is: if you chase after the person that set your house on fire while it is still on fire, you are focusing on the wrong thing. You need to look within you and look at attachments to samsaras, beliefs, needs, etc and understand those things and let them go. Going after the person who set your house on first while your house is still burning only allows your house to burn down.
My point: that analogy/metaphor assumes that you have a choice between chasing after the person who set your house on fire and focusing on your house. Maybe the person who set your house on fire isn’t running away, but standing there beating the shit out of you, telling you that if you ever report him or try to reltaliate against him, he’ll kill you.
- Share
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm #
This is incredibly thought-provoking, bfp.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm #
Thank you, thank you so much for this post.
Tonight I am preparing to file a report against my abuser. The most surprising emotion I’ve had this week is fear at the loss of control I will experience once I put the story outside of myself and _let go of it_.
For the last few years I’ve seen the main tenets of Buddhism as incompatible with survivorhood, for exactly the same reasons you’ve wrestled with. I have a lot more to think about now. Thank you, once again.
“Going after the person who set your house on fire while your house is still burning only allows your house to burn down.”
This. OMG, this.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 pm #
Thank you for this. As a survivor and as someone who tries to integrate buddhist precepts, this really struck me, because it feels really true. A lot of the time when I hear guidance on anger or abuse from a buddhist perspective, it’s hard not to walk into it with two questions and a big chip on my shoulder–i.e. this is supposed to help, but i am suspicious because it feels like the same thing that hurt. one of the most helpful things i ever heard a zen master say was to look at the anger–which is active form of hurt–and use the energy to guide–it’s not good, not bad–but something that points to where the energy wants to go….
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:27 am #
thanks for writing about this. It gives me alot of to think about and I want to explore this further.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am #
Wow. I have chills. Okay. Well, so, I’ve spent the better part of the last five months meditating and volunteering in silent retreats for Vipassana (Buddhist) meditation, my first deep plunge into the practice after flirting with Buddhist philosophy for many years. Only flirting, rather than embracing, because of what you describe here (the blame-the-victim-for-their-suffering problem) and another common concern (the compassion-without-attachment problem, a.k.a. “but how can you give up loving your friends, family, partners?”).
I am not a survivor of abuse. I cannot speak to that pain. But for what it’s worth, here is what I feel when I read your words.
Buddhist principles on anger, as I understand and experience them, don’t have to do with letting an offender or oppressor get away with oppression. This is a gross misinterpretation, which, like you said, is often used in religious communities to shut people up who are causing trouble for those in power.
Instead, Buddhist principles as I embrace them have to do with making sure, *first and foremost,* that I do my very best to maintain peace and compassion within myself. Then, I can take action — the strongest action possible! — to stop the harm occurring. Only with a balanced mind that understands the suffering of the oppressor, and feels compassion for the oppressor, can I know in my heart the most beneficial action to take.
This is not looking within at the expense of looking without. Rather, it is looking within *before* looking without. Instead of blindly *re*acting out of pain, anger, and fear, with a calm mind I am better able to *act* with proper volition and maximum wisdom. Once I have assured that the fire in my house is put out, then I can spend all of my focus and energy pursuing the arsonist in the best possible way.
If my number one goal is to live a life of love, joy, and harmony, free from suffering, then I have to prioritize that. I have to work inside-out, not outside-in. Ensure my own peace, then act to change external circumstances.
Of course, I’m not perfect; we’re not perfect. I’m not saying a survivor of abuse must heal completely before they can begin redressing the harms — that would be ludicrous. But even if it takes time, even if we lose sight of it again and again, we can keep returning to this inner wisdom. I am the only person who can make myself happy, healthy, liberated. That is my main job. For my own sake, and for the sake of others.
You are absolutely right, BFP — Jesus was Christ because he has a *choice.* And even as he was being tortured to death, he chose to have nothing but love and compassion for the people stoning him. They are ignorant, he said, They know not what they do. Let them not be punished, these poor, suffering, people.
Can we choose to have compassion for our abusers, even as we do everything in our power to keep them from abusing? Can we see that in harming us, they are actually harming themselves? Can we “submit” to the reality of this ignorance (which doesn’t mean admitting defeat, but recognizing the reality dispassionately, without becoming more upset and taking it personally) while simultaneously recognizing the reality that we ourselves can choose to act, powerfully, to stop the harm from occurring again?
My meditation teacher tells a story to explain this compassion in action. A mother is cooking on a fire. Her small child sees the fire, and for her it is a toy to play with. She starts running toward the fire. Does the mother remain passive? No! She catches hold of the child and uses all her strength to keep her away from the fire. The child won’t like it: she will cry and scream — but the mother must be firm, she must keep the child safe. And in her firmness, is the mother angry? Is she upset at the child for her ignorance? No. The mother is full of love, full of compassion. This is why she acts so forcefully.
So when we see an aggressor harming someone, my teacher says, we don’t stand silently by, saying, “Well I’m a Vipassana meditator, let these people work out their own karma, I don’t care.” No! Like the mother by the fire, we take strong action to stop the harm! And in our action, we have compassion for the aggressed person. But we have even more compassion for the aggressor. He is so ignorant. He does not realize that in harming this person he is actually harming himself. Harming himself so much. He is running toward the fire. And he won’t even respond to education, to soft language and explanations, so we have to take this hard action. Poor, suffering person, spreading his suffering all around him. Let us stop him from taking this wrong action.
This is compassionate action as I understand it. When the thoughts are right — harmonious, loving, peaceful — then the action will be right, even if it appears very forceful from the outside.
Does that make sense? Most importantly, this is infinitely easier said than done. Ultimately I don’t think it’s something that can be comprehended with the intellect alone. It has to be experienced. Which is what you’re doing, with your practice.
If you’re interested, there’s also a good book by Paul Fleischman called Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism. It goes into some of these ideas, but mostly dealing with war (it was post-Sept. 11, 2001), and unfortunately in the mainstream kind of way that ignores sexual violence as a principle instrument of war. But the insight into what the Buddha really said, I found useful.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, your healing, your path with us. Keep practicing! Your own answers will come. Please keep letting us know how it goes.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am #
And P, sending you much support and metta (love) in your filing.
Love to everyone,
katie
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am #
Sorry, I meant Buddhist principles on submission. And how to do it, given the reality of anger.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am #
I’m not a fan of Thich Naht Hanh. I think he does a lot of good work, but his writing…just no. When I was interested in Buddhism a few years ago I read “Being Peace” and there was a section about forgiveness where he describes a young girl being raped and murdered. Then he asks the reader to feel sympathy for both the girl and her rapist, to consider his background and what made him want to rape. I can understand how this point of view might actually be a healing one for someone who has survived abuse, but I think it is wrong to say that we shouldn’t feel angry and hateful towards people who commit unspeakable crimes. I’m not ready to accept that hate is always a bad thing.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm #
really quickly because I’m headed out the door:
klonke–I am SO glad that you commented–I got your lovely letter, and so a lot this was actually building on your thoughts!!!!
p–my heart and good thoughts are with you–deeply deeply with you. stregnth and love and tenderness–you can do this if this is what you want!!!!! xoxoxoxoxo
more later.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm #
this makes me think a lot about the struggles i’ve had with twelve step programs, and then my difficulty in articulating some of the ways i resolved (some of) them, where i could *feel* the shift, but couldn’t quite put the language together in a way that felt accurate or satisfying.
like, one of the central tenets of AA is acceptance, & people would say things like, “i just have to believe/accept that everything is exactly as it’s supposed to be in this moment, and that it’s all part of god’s/my higher power’s plan…”
and my first reaction to this has always been, what the fuck, everything is NOT okay. everything was not “just as it needed to be” when i was abused/assaulted, everything is not okay while there is so much violence and abuse and oppression. & being asked to accept that this is exactly how things are supposed to be in this moment… well, it’s a lot to ask.
but on the other hand, i believe it. i *get* it now, intuitively, in my body, in a way that i’m not very good at explaining. and the two sides aren’t actually at odds with each.
it also makes me think… i have taken a big step away from AA and the spiritual practice i used to have. not out of rejection– i’m still sober, and i really believe AA saved my life and taught me so much of what’s enabled me to be the person i am today– but… a kind of ambivalence, and a frustration with the lack of nuance. and i wonder how much of that has been about my being in a place where i needed to struggle. where acceptance was not the unequivocal answer. and … i mean, i also really believe that you can have those struggles within that framework, but i didn’t find a lot of other folks asking the same questions i was or willing to move away from the absolutes that don’t seem so absolute to me anymore. and it totally centers around questions of submission and acceptance, turning over/letting go, following directions…
thanks for writing this, bfp. i think it’s something i need to start thinking about again.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm #
BFP,
I had this song stuck in my head as I pondered RWOC bloggers (listened to my Speak! CD just before I watched some YouTube) while working this afternoon, and a connection came to me between your post here and one of “harrisjplive”‘s comments on that thread. Not only does he feel comfortable naming himself & his friends in connection w/ something that he thinks will piss off the police, but he uses profanity to name the police and says to tell them he’s coming back eventually and signs his name to that, as well.
He feels safe enough from police in Pawhuska who seem to be just as violent, but more socially controlled by the residents of the area they police when it comes to open violence against people than police in some other places.
I thought of this and thought, “I wonder if this is an example of the rebelling and being proud BFP wrote of as a possible prerequisite to submission of a good kind? And if so, I wonder what makes him comfortable rebelling and being proud like this.”
July 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am #
Briefly coming out of the woodwork to say thank you for this post. This aspect of Buddhism (and how it translates into political practice in places like where I live) is something that makes me very uncomfortable. What you say gives me hope for how Buddhists can refute an establishment that says that being poor, powerless and disenfranchised is a result of personal moral failure. (Sound familiar?)
I’m returning to the background now; I hope it’s okay that I’ve included you on my blogroll. Your posts make me laugh, cry and confront my privilege. I love it.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm #
yay! Katie–i’m glad you listened to the Speak! cd!!!!
I hope you liked it!!!
and that’s interesting connection you noticed–i don’t know if it’s what I would’ve thought of right off the bat in regards to “rebelling and being proud”–as I rarely think of violence as a first option!!!! but it is interesting to think about–how *would* you be submissive in that case? Is there a place for submission in the face of violence? What would submission look like?…because I think ultimately, submission should make you stronger–
July 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm #
amapola–I think we may have talked about this before–I can’t remember–but I know somewhere in my life it was mentioned that many rwoc social workers have a critique of the AA program exactly for the reasons you suggest here–that “not accepting” things–well, that’s not necessarily a problem for a lot of women of color who are alcoholics–that they are actually drinking *because* they are submitting and they’ve been trained into submission through violence for centuries (i.e. native women who had structural forms of violence enacted against them to ensure “submission”–like being forced to attend bording schools thousands of miles away from tribal lands).
which is all to say–how can a religion, a program, a spirituality, etc–formed and created to talk white men through their issues NOT be shifted to address the needs of people who are NOT white men (oh, and rich too, cuz esp in the case of AA–who could afford that shit at the time it was created *except* rich folks?).
if it’s NOT shifted to acknowledge the needs of others–what can it be but another practice in violence against those it is being imposed upon? Especially when things like AA are required by law by so many different law enforcement/judges?
July 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pm #
I think this is such a profound example–so important and so necessary to think about–and if I had even SLIGHTLY remembered it, something I could’ve asked the hard line christians in my life to think about when they were all advocating for “death to Iraq!’ etc.
I think in our world–a response to violence that does not center “revenge” or “hate” or “without attachment”–is near impossible. I’ve written before about people whose loved ones are murdered who advocate against the death penalty, and how they are LITERALLY “untranslateable” to u.s. society and culture. how we all look at people like that, and have NO clue how to understand them or interpret them.
I think people who are imagining ways to hold people accountable with compassion–they are doing some of the most ground breaking work out there….and it reminds me of how Holly said at feministe: anger should be *strategic*–and audre lorde said anger that isn’t strategic can eat a community alive.
again, harder said than done–but you have to consider–what’s the most important thing here–YOU (abuse survivor, racism survivor, etc) or THEM (white supremacy, male supremacy, etc)…and isn’t it an act of radicalness to say *I* am the most important thing? And I am going to take care of myself and use my rage against you strategically?
but….so hard. So hard.
ANd even harder when you think of how you have to struggle through sexist, homophobic, etc “teachings” before you can get to the good stuff–the stuff that empowers and uncovers the strength….
July 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm #
Thank you for this post. Too many surfaced tensions for words of mine own, so I’ll say simply that Anzaldua’s words on spiritual activism has given me much insight in how I might seek to reconcile these tensions in my own body, especially Ana Louise Keatings Interviews/Entrevistas with Gloria Anzaldua. Below is a quote from “La Prieta,” in This Bridge Called My Back, that captures why it’s easier for me to receive guidance from Gloria.
“I believe that by changing ourselves we change the world, that traveling El Mundo Zurdo path is the path of a two-way movement- a going deep into the self and an expanding out into the world, a simultaneous recreation of the self and a reconstruction of society. And yet, I am confused as to how to accomplish this. I can’t discount the fact that thousands go to bed hungry every night. The thousands that do numbing shitwork eight hours a day each day of their lives. The thousands that get beaten and killed every day. The millions of women who have been burned at the stake, the millions who have been raped. Where is the justice to this?”
June 26th, 2010 at 9:15 pm #
I join the chorus of thank yous here. This is one of those things I’ve sort of known and fumbled around occasionally but not quite articulated properly. It brings me closer.
Also the audre lourde quote on strategic anger.