I have
puzzled since yesterday to find something relevant to say regarding the
horrific shooting that took place on December 14. I am from Connecticut and
have been in Newtown a fair number of times over the years. This is
meaningless, but somehow brings it a little closer to home. As a parent, as a
teacher and administrator, and as a human being, I am sick at heart. Nothing I
can say or do can possibly make sense of this or make it better in any way.
What I
can do is to focus awareness on my own reactions and thoughts as a person and
as a Buddhist.
My first
and continuing reaction has been one of pain, my own (I have been in tears at
various times since the news first broke) and that of the many, many people
directly affected by this tragedy. I have practiced Tonglen during my
meditation, breathing in the pain of all these fellow humans and breathing out
loving-kindness. I have no illusion that this will benefit any of them in any
way, but empathy is all I can offer at the moment.
As a
Buddhist, a particularly vexing part of this is how to react to the young man
who did this. I want to be angry with him, to hate him, to call him monster and
evil as many have done, and put as much distance between him and me as members
of our species as I can. But if I truly espouse the philosophy of
loving-kindness that I try to live by, then I cannot deny our shared humanity
and must find whatever compassion I can. I am struck by the fact that the
horrendous pain he has caused can only have come from some terrible pain of his
own. Whether as a result of mental illness or his warped interpretation of
experiences he has had, the need to cause such needless pain to others,
particularly children who could have in no way wronged him, can only have come
from a place of unremitting pain within him. This in no way excuses or even
explains the terrible choice he made that we will never fully understand. But
it is the shared experience of the pain all of us as humans have known that
makes it impossible for me not to feel compassion for that part of him. As I
have stated before, as human beings, we share the greatest accomplishments of
our species, showing us our almost unlimited potential, as well as the most
heinous acts of depravity committed by our kind, showing us the depths to which
it is possible to descend. Both ends of the spectrum, and everything in
between, are encompassed in our humanness. It is only in accepting this reality
that we can truly find compassion for ourselves and for our fellow beings. I
abhor the actions the young man chose to take in his madness, but if I am able
to deny his humanness and attempt to relegate him to some sub-human strata,
then I myself am lost, and my philosophy of loving-compassion is utterly
without meaning.
I would
be remiss in not also sharing my belief that we, as a society, have contributed
to the creation of the milieu in which violence has come to be not a last
resort, but a viable option for expressing our displeasure with how believe the
world has treated us. Our young people,
particularly our young men, have been reared on terribly violent video games in
which aggression and violence are the path to "victory", but also in
which we are able to create mayhem and murder against our "opponents"
in a virtual world with no real-world consequences to befall us. In the virtual
world we do not hear the pitiful cries of our victims (except in disembodied,
artificially produced voices) nor do we see or smell their blood, nor need to
consider the anguish of their loved ones. We (and I do not hold my self above
this, being a James Bond fan all my life) seek out the rush of adrenaline
provided by violent clashes in which the good guy vanquishes the bad, as
opposed to the warmer rush of endorphins provided by a peaceful loving
encounter with another person. We watch (and again, I am an addict) television
shows in which the most gruesome of scenes are laid out before us as the FBI or
police struggle to stop a killer not unlike the man in Newtown. This is not to
say such things should not exist....as humans we have enjoyed such violent
spectacle for centuries (Titus Andronicus
springs to mind). Rather, it is to say that we do not take into account the
possible reactions of those people for whom the violence becomes the stuff of
their fantasies, fantasies in which they are somehow vindicated for the wrongs
they believe the world has done them. We turn away from the strange people
around us, leaving them ever more isolated to wrestle with their inner demons.
In the
end, we will never have the answer to why this happened...and realistically, it
doesn't matter. What matters, as my youngest son said, is that it could happen. The political maneuvering
around Second Amendment issues has already begun. I understand that many people
are fearful and need the sense (however illusory) of protection that gun
ownership affords them. I understand that some people enjoy the sport of
hunting, and I know many good people who fall in this category. However, all of
this aside, NO ONE NEEDS TO OWN AN
ASSAULT RIFLE CAPABLE OF FIRING MULTIPLE ROUNDS PER SECOND except a member
of a SWAT team or a soldier in a combat zone opposed by soldiers similarly
armed. Yet, in our headlong rush to preserve our "second amendment
rights", rather than make laws based on reason, we have made it possible
for ordinary citizens to possess these instruments of death (for in fact they
have no other purpose whatsoever), something almost every other industrialized
nation has chosen to prohibit.
Banning
such weapons will not, of course, guarantee that such horrific acts will never
be repeated, but it will make it a great deal more difficult to cause the level
of destruction we have seen far too many times.
When all
is said and done, the only thing we can do is to live each day well, try not to
harm any living being, and offer peace and compassion to everyone whose paths
cross ours. It seems not to amount to much in the greater scheme of things but
it is far more significant than one might think. If each of us made the choice
to do this, the level of violence we all must endure cannot help but to
decrease.
I can support the 'right to bear arms' so long as we can keep the interpretation of it to it's intended purpose - that a government, or any group, cannot confiscate all weapons with the intent of intimidating people into mindless automatons. Current interpretation on the 'right to bear arms' is a perversion of its original intent. We, those currently 'intimidated' by those groups/individuals who
ReplyDeleteflaunt their perceived superiority because they have guns, should not be forced to arm ourselves in retaliation or to protect ourselves. There should not be so many guns around - then people who want to use them won't be able to get their hands on them, and children will not be able to shoot other children out of ignorance.
To use a frivolous example for a serious situation - if I want to eat a healthy and balanced diet, but my cupboards are filled with desserts and potato chips ... something bad is going to happen.
Peace to all of us - because we are all affected.
Just to be clear, and perhaps you are already aware, but the rifle used was not capable of multiple shots per second as a military fully automatic weapon does. It was a civilian semi- automatic version assault weapon look alike. Not that this affects your article but thought you might want to be accurate in your description.
ReplyDelete