Peace and happiness isn’t about being free from pain, suffering, disputes or conflict. Peace and happiness depends on the quality of our relationship with other people, with the environment and with the cosmos. The good news is that peace and happiness increases as we become more aware of our true place in the scheme of things and work to preserve it. The pain and suffering, disputes and conflict that can be part of everyday life then becomes easier to cope with.

People gain awareness of this in various ways. Some gain it through religion, others through science and some gain it through everyday experience. Many would probably say they gained it through a combination of all the above. But regardless of how it happens, the awareness is of peace and happiness increasing as we improve the quality of our relationships.

Most human spiritual and social development is the result of reflecting on the consequences of what we say and do; what others say and do; what happens in our environment; and on cosmic events. However, the direction our development takes depends on what we centre on as we reflect on these things.  Choosing what to centre on is crucial to the quality of our relationships and is a decision that needs to be made many times each day, for as long as we live.

Each decision comes at the junction of two possible paths. One path leads to the enduring peace and happiness that continues even though there may be trouble and strife. The other path leads to instant pleasure and temporary relief from life’s problems. Everyone comes to these junctions and must face the same decision many times every day throughout life.

The choice is to centre on our own needs, or to centre on the needs of the relationship. Regardless of whether the ‘other’ is a person, the environment or the cosmos, centring only on our own needs is at the expense of the other and damages the quality of the relationship. The consequence of that damage may not be immediately apparent, but it does exist. The next junction reached may be only seconds away, where we again have to decide between increasing the damage done at the previous junction or take the other path.

Nature and the cosmos are very forgiving and will allow us to simply start again at each junction throughout life. However, other people at each junction have a choice. They may allow us to simply start again; they may impose some condition before resuming the relationship; or they may terminate the relationship. The quality of our relationships, and therefore our happiness, really is our choice. 


Photo: North Island New Zealand.

Conflict is inevitable, even in ‘love relationships’. Resolving conflict can be difficult, even for people centred on improving the quality of a relationship. It’s difficult because the urge to win or to get even for past wrongs is so much a part of our culture. We need to acknowledge that we are under the influence of these urges whenever we are faced with conflict but also be aware we can counteract that influence. 

It’s much easier to resolve a conflict or solve a relationship problem when we start from the cosmic viewpoint that all humans are equal and think about how that should affect what we say and do. When a relationship is grounded in equality, the people involved will centre on the problem, or conflict, at hand, including the emotional effects and any material loss or damage that needs to be put right. In a relationship of equals, there is no competition; no desire to dominate or thought of retribution. However, as soon as one views the other as ‘the enemy’ and begins focusing on winning or seeking revenge, the chances of peacefully resolving the problem takes a nose dive.

Conflicts are more likely to be resolved peacefully when those involved share the same worldview and have common goals. Religious people should have the advantage in this, since they aspire to share the same worldview, but even religions are notoriously competitive on all levels of interaction. This applies from the level of ‘which is the one true religion’ upwards. And resentment over past injustices has lingered between religions for centuries. Even though organised religion has failed to lead the way in conflict resolution, it is possible for anyone to start the ball rolling in their own life.

Even if the other person in a dispute is intent on winning and therefore not interested in equality, any person who is grounded in equality, and centred on the principles of nonviolence, is in a strong position to gain a fair outcome, and turn an ‘enemy’ into a friend. Therefore, when faced with a conflict, the first thing to do is remember that equality is the true ground for human relationships, and then centre on obtaining an outcome consistent with that base.

Once you are grounded and centred, there are four guidelines to peaceful conflict resolution. It’s ironic that if these guidelines were used to guide communication between people in everyday life, there would be few negative conflicts to resolve. The guidelines for conflict resolution (or for avoiding negative conflicts) are:

·         Respect the other person.

·         Listen until the other person’s views are understood.

·         Be open and honest in sharing your own views.

·         Make agreements for the common good. (Seek win/win solutions)


Bob Myers, author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

WHAT AM I WORKING ON?

I write about human behaviour in relationships; between people, with the environment and with the cosmos. And the effect that behaviour has on the quality of each relationship. I explore the lifelong struggle between the human need for belonging (love) and the need for individuality (status or importance). That means looking at the connection between spirituality and politics. Another way of putting is that I write about the spirituality of politics in everyday life, as distinct from religion. My aim is to express my views on this in terms that appeal to both religious and nonreligious people because of the real and proper need to keep religion and politics separated.

I have to somehow make sense of the world, and my place in it, while carrying the baggage that comes with being an accidental white, male, Australian, Christian. Each label adorns a separate bag of rules, customs, expectations, values and biases that hamper clear and objective thinking.

HOW DOES MY WORK DIFFER FROM OTHERS OF ITS GENRE?

My work differs from others of its genre in that it is about my journey of awareness, coupled with the need I have to put theory into practice. Thinking about the complexity of the human condition and human behaviour is difficult enough but my background in electronics has left me with a very real need to show how theory works in everyday life. In my books, I draw examples from the family setting to illustrate my points because we all experienced some form of family life that provided us with our early training in forming relationships and solving relationship problems.

Whatever our family setting was, it was where we began accumulating the baggage we now have to deal with as we struggle to become individuals who belong in relationship with other people, the environment and the cosmos.

What I centre on in each interaction with other people reflects the stage I am at in the struggle between my two needs; to belong and to be an individual.

WHY DO I WRITE WHAT I DO?

Even in my early teens I was drawn to read nonfiction books, mainly on culture or history. Then for twenty years I alternated between those and very technical books on electronics and physics, which may explain my interest in people and my need to understand how things work. However, I seem to have always felt compelled to understand people and life because my earliest memory of school was questioning what I was being taught about religion in year two of primary school. I questioned it but I still have a passion for studying religious and nonreligious belief systems.

My belief in the equality of all people has me wanting to describe a practical spirituality without religion. In other words, how to be an individual who belongs, no matter what belief system we were born into.

HOW DOES MY WORKING PROCESS WORK?

I don’t seem to have a set working process. Maybe that’s why I sometimes have great trouble writing. I hear of people who can write great long essays in a short space of time but I usually agonise over every word. Sometimes I just sit down and write whatever comes into my head about a topic and then go over and over it until I think it's right. Sometimes I think of a heading and a few main points that I later flesh out but writing is seldom easy for me.

However, writing about human behaviour is complex and usually requires a great deal of thought. For example; trying to work out the difference between consequences and punishment, or the connection between religion and spirituality. I find that walking is the best way to help me work through these sort of complex problems and that suits me fine because I walk for an hour every morning. I refer to my walks as my meditation time. 

Bob Myers.

People spend millions of dollars on what often turns out to be a fruitless search for some form of peace and happiness. The sad news is that most  waste their money because they can’t recognise peace and happiness when they find it. So they pass it by. This is partly because we think of peace as being something calm and tranquil. We don’t think of finding peace in the midst of a heated argument. And if we think of happiness as being a constant state of euphoria,, we don't think of finding happiness in a catastrophe. Constant tranquillity and constant euphoria might sound like a promise of heaven but it certainly isn’t life.

The best we seem to manage in life is experience short periods of tranquillity or feelings of euphoria that pass too quickly. Most are just fleeting moments that become wonderful memories we carry with us for the rest of our lives. However, we can do better. We can have both peace of mind and a sense of harmony as normal parts of daily life, even in the midst of turmoil and sadness, if we are realistic and aim for dynamic peace and happiness.

The word dynamic means vibrant, lively, energetic and surprising. Dynamic peace immediately becomes more appealing and exciting than constant tranquillity over the long term. Therefore, peace and happiness can vary without being lost, because it is really based on something deeper than the fluctuations and disturbances appearing on the surface. Large fluctuations can occur without destroying the overall sense of stability within human relationships when the people involved follow the guidelines that transform conflict into creative conflict. They can learn from nature and experience harmony in disputes.   

Four themes run through the material on the Road of Peace website and I will explore these in future blogs. Using these four themes as the framework was inspired by the work of Brendan McKeague, lead trainer with Pace e Bene Australia.   

1.    Exploring our relationship to other people; to the environment and to the cosmos
         (or God, by whatever name). 
                    Included under this heading are things like identity, self esteem, self confidence and
                     morals, as well as beliefs and values regarding authority (ours and theirs).
2.    The ways in which our culture affects how we relate to each other. 
                    Included under this heading are things like love, sexism, racism, social status,
                    structural and systemic inequality and discrimination.
3.    Where and how to regain spiritual and emotional strength when life gets tough. 
                    Included under this heading are the myriad of ‘self esteem service stations’ people
                    use to lift their spirits, ranging from religious practices to secular activities such as
                    shopping and sport.
4.    Exploring new and better ways to enhance problem solving and conflict resolution skills. 
                    Included under this heading are various sets of conflict resolution methods and
                    guidelines, as well as the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Dorothy Day,
                    and various religious figures.  

Bob Myers.

Most people rate honesty very highly, especially in regard to money and telling the truth, so it seems logical that our social systems would reflect that attitude. Do they?

A person who is convicted in a court of law for stealing money or telling lies is branded as a thief and a liar for life and may find it difficult to find employment. However, a person who appeals and has the evidence against him dismissed on a technicality has a clean slate, even though the inadmissible evidence proved his guilt beyond doubt.

The point is that, in the legal system, the law and its interpretation is more important than the truth. Our legal system is an adversarial system which means the lawyers involved are competing against each other to convince a judge or jury to accept their version of what is legally right, not what is the truth. In any adversarial situation, winning becomes more important than the truth.

Our parliamentary system is based on what is called the Westminster adversarial system and anyone who has watched politicians in action quickly become aware that winning an argument is far more important than giving a straight answer. There is probably no better example of the adversarial debating process than parliament. Every politician is by definition trying to increase their power and influence in the parliament and most work to become cabinet ministers or maybe even prime minister.

In the general community, most committees adopt a version of the Westminster adversarial system for making decisions, and even sporting tribunals adopt a legalistic system. Religious institutions are often described as both adversarial and legalistic in dealing with complaints and disputes. So it is little wonder that in everyday life we also adopt an adversarial attitude to settling differences with other people, even loved ones.  

The effect of this influence on the way we relate to others can damage relationships because the main aim of the adversarial approach is to win and we feel somehow inferior if we lose. That means the whole thing is more self-serving than advancing our knowledge of the truth or finding a solution that everyone can live with.

• The example from parliament and the legal system is that the winning argument somehow becomes the truth, rather like deciding who is right by having a fist fight, or who can drink the most alcohol. That means there is no real requirement for the content of a person’s argument to be actual truth.
• In order to win, it is an acceptable tactic to discredit the opposition’s intelligence to weaken their argument, even though you may secretly agree with it. Winning may therefore promote something neither side actually believes is right.
• This method of debating is being taught to our children in the schools as a legitimate way of advancing our knowledge and skills

All the above throws some light on why children can be confused when we suddenly get upset over them being a little untruthful  and refusing to admit to doing something.

I suggest that we would have more credibility with our children if our social systems, including churches and schools, were to adopt and teach the Gandhian truth-seeking method of debating. Gandhi taught about the importance of hanging onto what we believe to be the truth because our beliefs and values help us make sense of the world as we make decisions about what to do.

Truth-seeking debates.
Some of our beliefs are deeply held, especially religious beliefs, and we feel very threatened and defensive when they are attacked. However, other people hold strong opposing views which they claim as being the truth. Obviously, opposing views cannot both be the absolute truth.

Gandhi maintained that everyone knows part of the truth and part of the untruth. He taught that when we listen until we understand the other’s views, we can take the bits that make sense to us and add these to our truth, so our truth grows. And if we listen to enough people and gain a little from each of them, our truth gets bigger and bigger. This was a deep belief for him because he believed Truth was God, so his search for truth was a search for God.

Our beliefs and values are important to hang onto but, if we believe our truth is the truth and are not prepared to modify it under any circumstances, those beliefs and values become more like prison walls restricting our knowledge.

A genuine search for the truth sets us free from the prison of false beliefs but it’s also important to hold fast to what we believe to be true as we assess what others are saying.

The rules of the truth-seeking debate method are:

• Be open and honest in expressing your views.
• Listen  to, and respect, the views of others.
• Be prepared to vary your views if you are convinced by what you hear.
• Then be open and honest in sharing your new level of awareness.
  

I wonder what kind of social structures and systems we would have now had our ancestors adopted a cooperative, truth-seeking debating method rather than the adversarial method. 

      When the Prime Minister said "Sorry", were all black and white people in Australia reconciled? Not likely. Real reconciliation will not happen until black and white are no longer different, and because blacks and whites are fundamentally different, this will never happen. Or are they? Some don’t act that way. 
      For people who think in black or white terms, it must be confronting when some black people are white, or should I say when some white people are black.
      When Kyle Van Derkuyp, the product of an Aboriginal mother and an Irish father, said he wanted to carry the Aboriginal flag at the Sydney Olympics, my first reaction was, "Will he carry an Irish flag in the other hand? After all, he’s no more Aboriginal than Irish.” 
      Many non-indigenous Australians express annoyance, or even disgust, at white-skinned people claiming to be black. Their various opinions are summed up by the question, ‘Why don't they go with their three parts white rather than their one part black?’
      Although some are annoyed by it, the fact that white can be black is an indication that real reconciliation is possible because it moves us away from physical differences being the focus of racism. If physical difference is not the problem, spiritual difference must be. 
      The previous paragraph may seem contradictory because the spiritual is as fundamental as you can get and surely the more fundamental the difference, the harder it is for reconciliation to occur.
      Popular white perception of the spiritual connection indigenous people have with the earth seems to be based on indigenous spirituality being somehow different to non-indigenous spirituality. This perception is the actual root of racism, since 'different' quickly leads to judgements of better/worse, superior/inferior.
      There is a perception of difference at the most basic (spiritual) level without there being any actual difference. All people are made of the same ‘stuff’, which means, at the most fundamental level, indigenous and non-indigenous people are equal. The actual difference is in the awareness of our spirituality, and in the way of expressing that awareness; not in the spirituality itself.
      In countries where there is a separation of Church and State, ‘religion’ refers to how a group of people traditionally express their awareness of human spirituality within a culture, but where there is no such division the culture itself is the expression of spirituality. Old Testament Israel and pre-1788 aboriginal Australia would be examples of the latter. 
      As a culture, indigenous people have enjoyed their spiritual connection with Australia much longer than non-indigenous people but it would be quite wrong to now attribute that spiritual connection only to indigenous people. And, in every day life, it is difficult to assess the relative strength of that connection in individual Australians, indigenous or non-indigenous.
      Conflicts in relationships, in the home, between religions, cultures or nations are difficult to resolve when people act from positions of perceived difference. Those same conflicts become much easier to resolve when the people involved are aware of starting from common ground: equality.
      There is no difference between Aboriginal spirituality or Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Taoist, or Atheist spirituality. Those terms indicate how members of each group satisfy the need to express human spirituality, as they gather to meet the need to belong.   
      Acceptance of the oneness of human spirituality would make efforts at reconciliation real rather than cosmetic and unite Australians of all backgrounds in the struggle to gain respect for each other's way of expressing spiritual awareness.
      Applying the concept of ‘a fair go’ to spiritual expression demands that each person has the opportunity to develop their own identity. Many studies have found that having a strong sense of spirituality or ‘being religious’ is a protective factor against depression and suicide. 
      The way spirituality is expressed is part of a person’s identity and is evident in how they relate to other people. Kyle Van Derkuyp was not denying his Irish heritage, which had been expressed for many years, he just wanted to also express himself through his aboriginality, and that’s cool.