The (he)art of understanding
Sitting in a beige little room at Wadham College, Oxford, reading a new book on methodology in the social sciences I wonder what I am doing in academia. Methodology. God, what a dry, soulless word, and God, how many things seem to have been written on it that are all about knowledge and have nothing to do with insight or understanding.
Still, it doesn't have to be like that. For some reason, I am convinced there can be heart to research and social science. In fact, I think there has to be heart, or else we will not find a proper way to know what it is we have in front of us. Sometimes I am hit by a vision of the researcher within the social sciences as someone who learns how to maintain a truly open mind and open heart, and who brings this openness, her readiness to listen deeply, her steady presence, into the different context where she goes. She is not "objective" in a superficial, distanced sense, but allows herself to be touched by the people, situations or structures being studied. She is fearless in admitting her lack of knowledge, in exposing herself to what is in people's hearts and minds as they struggle in the dismal swamp of politics. She makes research an art of understanding.
A few months ago, a friend sent me a quote from Thinley Norbu Rinpoche:
There is no communication in relative truth without understanding everyone’s system and idea, so may I adapt to everyone’s system for everyone’s benefit.
There is no liberation in absolute truth without release from everyone’s system and idea, so may I adapt to no one’s system, beyond benefit’s wish.
I have been digesting those lines since I first read them. They leave me exhilarated. There is something absolutely crucial in there, not only for meditators and salvation-seekers, but for peacemakers and emancipators and social scientists and revolutionary leaders. I feel tempted to try to pin it down, of course, but somehow there is nothing to add. There is just letting that paradox work on me, working its way to the heart.
