Good communication gains, bad communication loses. Marshall McLuhan, a great philosopher of communication theory, considers any communication as an extension of oneself. For him the medium is the message. The focus needs to be on the medium rather than the message. In my over 45 years of counseling, psychotherapy, mediation and conflict management, I have experienced it is not what I said but how I said that had the most desired effect. It is not really the content of communication but the process of communication that really mattered. The process of communication relates to one's non-verbal language such as body-language, tone, pace, emotional intensity, and a healthy detachment. Body language may involve facial expression, posture, and general demeanor.

             A loud and trained strong voice of mine was an advantage for me in my younger days, especially in public speaking when a loudspeaker was rare. Now my strong, loud voice is a disadvantage. When I talk in my natural, loud voice my wife and others sometimes ask me if I am angry when I am certainly not angry. I was certainly intensely involved and passionate in advocating for my cause. There are times when in the midst of our communication my wife tells me that I am putting her down, and why am I yelling. As I do not like to put anybody down or yell at anyone, and as I in my hurt challenge her to tell me what it is that I said that made her feel put down, her invariable response is: It is the way you said it. She is definitely talking about some intangible medium or often inscrutable expression that, for me anyway, does not easily lend to any kind of rational analysis.

             I wanted to find out how Mahatma Gandhi was so effective in his communication with the British. I listened to a rare specimen of his recorded speech. I watched several times Attenborough's precious Oscar winning movie Gandhi wherein Oscar-winning Ben Kingsley acted beautifully as Gandhi. In his conversation or talk Gandhi spoke in a dispassionate way. His tone was low; his pace was slow. He was certainly engaging. He did not lack in conviction. He certainly was not an orator. His speech almost said let the truth of his cause stand. He was resigned to whatever happening. He was not there to score a point or win an argument or make a particular impression. He was plain in his un-adorned speech as he was unshakable in his resolve. His communication coming from his un-daunted spirit and his strength continuously fed by his spiritual source prepared him to be the one-man army on the border of then East Pakistan while millions of persons, both Hindus and Muslims, were slaughtered on the western border. Shall we then pay more attention to how we say what we say? Many times the way we communicate with empathy makes the difference between winning and losing.

Love Your Enemies

            In the serene Shantisadan Siddhashram (Abode of Peace Center for Realization) where I live, generally peace reigns. Seven paid helpers of the ashram appeared to work cooperatively and harmoniously for years. However, some recent events that had their origin when I was away marred the ashram atmosphere. One of the workers quit after getting another job. After about 10 days a police officer arrived at the ashram door to inquire about a complaint against an important ashram member. The complaint resulted from a false accusation. Soon the ashram atmosphere became saturated with vicious toxicity. I was also reminded of the false accusation years ago in the USA that could have dragged my name in the dirt. At that time I was a very responsible and prominent psychologist doctor on the staff of a children's psychiatric hospital. As I was not arrested after the complaint and inquiry, I asked the police detective why I was not arrested, his spontaneous but simple response was that he did not believe the story of the complainant.

             The question really is how to forgive the unforgivable. How does one forgive those who out of some kind of vindictiveness attempt to ruin others' reputation or assassinate their characters? In short, how does one love one's enemies? This was the question put to me in last night's satsang (gathering of saints) in the ashram. In a world of the law of talion (an eye for an eye), forgiveness is not in vogue. I tried to look into the teachings of the World's Best Masters. The truly satisfying spiritual answer that came to me was from the teaching of Christ. But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you' (Luke 6: 27-28). Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita also exhorts us who are on the path of liberation to go beyond hatred and revenge. Because those who hurt us are not different from us. They are really us. When Christ tells us to love our enemies, I do not interpret it to mean that we like them. Liking comes from our feelings. Loving is a commitment that comes from our will. That kind of loving is in our control while liking is not. So we can love someone we dislike. Eventually we get consciously into the habit of loving everyone.

            Loving everyone also paves the way to the unity of humanity that is so necessary in a world of fragmentation and divisiveness. Moreover, we do not make others' problems our problems. The energy we spend in hating others will eventually destroy us as we do not have that energy for our own development. Thus not hating or taking revenge is in our own enlightened self-interest in the long run. I do not by any means suggest that we suppress or repress our legitimate emotions coming out of our hurts, that can harm us. We definitely need to vent those feelings in appropriate settings to be emotionally healthy.