Time for Courage: When Our Weak Links Get Tested

In a teaching on the Link from April 3, 2022, Dungse Jampal Norbu raises questions about what resources we turn to when “our weak links are tested.” In particular, when situations provoke outrage, how do we identify and apply a genuinely compassionate response instead?

In times of dramatic change or conflict, it’s interesting to see how I personally—and maybe we as a society—tend to turn to our default habitual settings. Yet, we may not be clear what our default is. We think of ourselves as individuals with a certain amount of autonomy or control and good qualities. There are so many Dharma teachings and practices to turn to—the Four Noble Truths, the Four Immeasurables, the Five Wisdoms, the Five Paths, the ten Bhumis. But it’s hard to avail ourselves of all these teachings and modes of conduct in a given moment. So we might just think, “Oh, you know, I’ll just kind of be myself and that’ll be enough to get by.”  But it’s more likely that we aren’t just being any old way, and instead, we are defaulting to some rule, some set of principles, some habitual reactions. 

When we are not under stress, when life is easy and dandy,  there’s no need to look so deeply. But what happens when we are tested, when every link in our mental chain, every link that holds our life together, is tested?  When we abruptly pushed toward our weak links, when they are placed under stress, and when they could even possibly break, that’s when we tend to default to something like the survival of the fittest, or “it’s every man for himself.” Our defaults might be rules and positions that we might not even have explicitly agreed with; we just default to them. The reason we default to them is because we have not yet forged our own stronger links,  we have not trained our mind; we have not undergone that process of looking within to see if our default position is, in fact, helpful and whether it will benefit ourselves or others.

And so when we’re under stress, we tend to be habitually reactive even while we hope to have our actions meet our goals and aspirations for a greater vision. I don’t know if anyone wants to default to “it’s every man for himself.” That seems a bit bleak, a bit selfish. What kind of attitude is that to live by? When we default to positions that we don’t even agree with, it’s likely because we have not addressed an underlying craving and rejection. We have not addressed this basic condition which forms the foundation of fear. In this way when fear arises in response to change, even if it isn’t a major change, just some social provocation, we default. 

How will you react?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an image repeated more times than I have this past week of the incident at the Academy Awards, and it just seems totally unnecessary for social events that don’t really make or break my life to be  pushed in my face so often. It’s almost like I’m demanded to have an opinion on these things. And this is just one example. But I feel that living in this time right now, we are constantly asked, ‘How do you react to the situation? What’s your side? What’s your take? Whose side are you on?’  This has become a cultural phenomenon, needing to take sides, needing to respond, or needing to be provoked. In some sense we are talking about a culture of outrage.

In my understanding of the Buddhist teachings, outrage is the antithesis of compassion because outrage is punitive. When there is outrage over some event, then someone is right and someone is wrong, something must be done, someone must be punished, and someone must face the consequences. Whether we are involved or not, whether it’s relevant to our life or not, today’s culture, which is permeated by social media, provokes us to take a position and project it outwards. But outrage is really not spiritually productive in any way because it automatically assumes this sense of entitlement over outer circumstances. Whereas compassion, on the other hand, is not a means of disengaging with or judging the situation. Rather it’s a way of engaging with a more open heart, engaging in a way that does not divide the world into what is desirable and what is undesirable, what we fear and what we grasp, who is right and who is wrong. Compassion is more accepting. In fact, it’s all accepting, in fact. In that sense, compassion is connective, whereas outrage is punitive.

And that is why compassion requires genuine courage in the face of change, courage not to perceive something as a threat and start dividing the world into self and other, into defensive and aggressive positions. Compassion is a much more intelligent approach to meeting the world and meeting all the changes that are taking place in the world. And thus, we have to have courage to be compassionate, which in turn enables us not to default to the habitual fear that divides the world into sides. 

What is your motivation?

In addition, we certainly need skillful means. Skillful means are the partner of compassion and relate closely to our sense of personal, inner transformation. If we focus only on the outer action, as outrage generally does, we’re missing a big piece. Our response becomes all about the outcome. In my experience, if you’re focused only on the outcome, you end up ignoring a great deal of your own mind because you are not taking into account the power of motivation, the power of intention that shapes our skillful means. 

If, for instance, you have a leaky faucet and need someone to fix it, you have a couple of options. You could pay a trained plumber to come in and fix it, or you could have a band of monkeys come in and fix it for free. You might be thinking, “It doesn’t matter either way, as long as it gets fixed!” But you kind of know that something’s likely to go wrong if you hire the monkeys. Similarly, if you’re interested only in the outcome to a given situation and not interested in your motivation—in why you are deciding to hire the plumber or the monkeys—then you’re missing a great deal. 

It’s great that you want to engage with the world in order to make a difference and intend to be of benefit rather than just sit back and let events wash over you. But it matters greatly who you are on the inside, what is going on in your own mind. What is your intention? What is your motivation?  Just acting compassionately is not the same as acting with genuine compassion. Even though these two actions may appear to be the same on the outside, there is a big difference. 

I don’t personally trust any kind of grand gesture that does not have a certain degree of humility, even if it seems to have compassion, even if it seems to have wisdom. Even if someone’s actions seem to have the appearance of skillful means, but is not an approach based on humility, I tend not to trust very much what’s behind those actions. I mean, it’s wonderful that the work gets done, that the outer action benefits someone, but I don’t trust it quite as much as when I see genuine compassion, genuine humility, and genuine wisdom.

Genuine courage has to be humble. When we are provoked, we really long for freedom, autonomy, the ability to make our own choices. And sometimes we think of this freedom as not doing what society says, not being constrained by the laws of the  society or cultural norms. And to some degree, I think we do find that kind of freedom. We also find ease and some happiness from not conforming all the time or not always obeying some kind of outer structure or mandate. But right along side is also this habitual mandate, this habitual set of rules that we tend to default to and that often remain unexamined. So, if we just ignore society’s conventions, but then start following the conventions of our own habitual tendencies, we’re just as trapped, we’re just as locked up. We don’t really find that sense of freedom because we’re just acting on impulse, like a band of monkeys. And even monkeys are sometimes more intelligent than that. They’re not always so reactive. Even a monkey can take a moment to sit and reflect and come up with a better idea. 

I don’t know if monkeys can totally overcome all their personal habitual reactions and make a greater decision for the benefit of self and others. But who knows, the Buddha himself was a monkey in a previous life. And there are the Jataka tales about self–sacrifices that he made for his monkey tribe, which are very inspiring. The point is not to default to these habitual tendencies as a way to be free. 

When it comes to seeking freedom and developing courage, we have to realize that freedom is not about you. That view is what holds us back from actually being free. When we are so caught up in this sense of self, that it’s all about us, that everything must be according to us, then we lose genuine humility, and our courage is cut in half. Our compassion is cut in half. Our freedom is cut in half. Genuine compassion gives rise to genuine courage. Genuine compassion cannot be beholden to neurosis. It cannot be tied to “what about me?”

Who am I going to be?

And so in this way, when we are presented with difficulties in life that test our weak links, mind training is the path of personal transformation. Who will we be when we engage with the world? Who will we become on this path to enlightenment? When we let go of the notion that it’s all about me, who will we become? And how will that serve the world? What kind of freedom will that bring to our lives? I think it’s pretty self-evident that this is the direction to go in. But it does have to be a choice and it does take effort to undergo mind training. It does take some battling against the ego’s preferences, against the habitual tendency to cling to an idea of freedom that is all about me, all about self. So the question you have to ask yourself is,  Who am I going to be: a pack of monkeys, or a bodhisattva?