In the days since President Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden on Sunday night, and the subsequent spontaneous celebrations that erupted across the nation, I have been reflecting a lot on my own reaction to the news as well as the reactions of the rest of our society.

I can’t say I was surprised to see live images of people cheering and waving American flags (and one Bush Cheney campaign sign) in front of the White House. But I immediately felt uncomfortable by the celebration. I readily admit that I’m not the least bit troubled that the world no longer has Osama bin Laden around. But to my mind there’s something unseemly in celebrating a human beings death, regardless of who he or she was or what they did.

I’m not Christian but one of the things I most admire about the teachings of Christ is the statement attributed to him from his final moments on the cross: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”. An inspiring example of forgiveness if ever there was one. I’m much more immersed in Buddhist teachings and there too you’ll find a message of forgiveness and compassion for even the worst people because of the fundamental teaching that we are all one.

As my workweek began I wondered to what extent these current events would present itself as a topic in my clients sessions. Often when there is big news in the world clients use some of their time to process their reactions. I was heartened that so many of my clients focused on the celebrations they observed and how it didn’t sit well with them. I observed the same kind of sentiments amongst my friends and acquaintances on Facebook. And finally, as the week progressed, the media itself began to comment on the issue, with articles in the Boston Globe (Rejoicing Over Death of bin Laden Debated) and the New York Times (Celebrating a Death: Ugly, Maybe, but Only Human).

As the New York Times article suggests, celebrating the death of someone like Osama bin Laden may be human, but apparently, for a smaller minority of us, it’s also human to be put off by the celebration. And that minority heartens me because I believe they are our future.

The March 28-April 4 addition of Newsweek has on it’s cover “Apocalypse Now: Tsunamis.  Earthquakes.  Nuclear Meltdowns.  Revolutions.  Economies on the Brink.  What the #@%! Is Next?”.

I must admit that I’ve been thinking a lot about such things recently, watching the news over the span of one short week to see documented the psychological public unraveling of a major TV star, the corrupt abuse of power in Wisconsin, the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear emergency in Japan, and the start of a third Middle East war.  Friends have gently teased me about my doomsday preoccupations, and I won’t deny that I question my fascination as well.  But it appears undeniable that something is happening in this world and I won’t turn my back to it.

Which is the point of this post.  Nostradamus may have got in early on the whole doomsday prognostication thing, but it’s a flourishing business lately, what with global climate change, peak oil, water shortages, drought and famine, the decline and death of bee colonies (with devastating implications for the cultivation of food), massive failing economies, and unrest throughout the world.  If you pay attention to any one of these topics, the future is bleak.  Combined, the overlapping problems become exponentially more complicated and overwhelming.  And my belief is that we are powerless to do anything about any of it.  It’s not to say that we shouldn’t conserve more and consume less, to recycle, to save for our future.  We should do all these things and more.  I’m just not convinced that any of our individual actions will make much difference.

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I believe some major shit is unfolding and that it is inevitable and unavoidable.  And there’s not a lot any of can do to stop it.  But there is something we can do internally and subjectively in regards to what is unfolding, and that has to do with how we respond to it all.

My favorite philosopher Ken Wilber has a saying that I think applies here.  He talks about psychological and spiritual development and how a marker for its measure is that one is more open, receptive, and fully engaged with what is in front of him (reality).  And he describes that from that open, receptive and engaged posture, “it hurts more, but bothers you less”.  I do believe we’re all in for a whole lot of hurt in the coming decades, but I’m all for it bothering me less.

I want to have the most optimal relationship with reality—exactly as it is—not how I want it to be.  While I might very much want things to stay exactly as they are in the relatively comfortable life that I’m living, I don’t expect that to be the case.  Therefore, can I be prepared for the life that appears inevitable?  Preparedness in this case simply means having a mind and heart that can remain open to what it perceives with the greatest equanimity and grace.

That’s not to say that things wont suck.  I’m expecting them to suck big time.  But as another wise person once said, “pain is unavoidable, suffering is optional”.  Suffering refers to the layers of mental anguish we create for ourselves when we tell ourselves that the reality that is in front of us shouldn’t be there.  It’s like rubbing salt into a psychic wound.  It serves no good except to make a bad situation worse and to increase our pain.

So I’m preparing myself for the hurt, to experience the pain of the coming “apocalypse” with as much openness and receptivity as I can muster.  To keep my heart and mind open fully to the unfolding experience of my life, whatever befalls it.

Will you join me?

I’m part of a list serve from a spiritual community where I was once a resident. There are often updates from past residents about their lives and one recent individual wrote about how she’s currently working with “homeless homos with AIDS”. I immediately found her use of language to be insensitive and inappropriate and I responded to the list serve with my opinion. It seems I struck a bit of a nerve since the topic of language became a lively thread for the past few days.

This incident makes me think of Laura Schlessinger and her recent incident with the use of the “n” word. When a black women called in to complain about her white husband and his white friends insensitive use of racial language, Schlessinger went on an n-word rant, using the word multiple times to highlight what she deemed the hypocrisy of black peoples use of the n word where others were forbidden from using it. I take her point, but I find her method of raising that point to be offensive and gratuitous.

I would argue that if we all agree that some words are offensive and hurtful then they shouldn’t be used by anyone in an effort to do no harm to others. The women I mentioned above who described homeless homos with AIDS justified her use of that language by identifying herself as gay. I wrote back and told her I didn’t think it mattered, particularly because she only identified herself as such after the fact and because she didn’t know who her audience was when she used that language.

I will admit to using that sort of language in the privacy of all gay settings, and I recognize that it’s a risky business to play with language in that way. At the same time, I would never use that sort of language in a mixed setting or when I couldn’t be sure of the sexual identity of all those present. Am I marking myself as a hypocrite? Perhaps. But my point is that language matters, and we should all be more sensitive to its use, and abuse.