Total Responsibility

     During the afternoon Dharma talk today on protecting the spiritual environment, Chang Hwa Fashi explored the notion of 'total responsibility', a term coined  by Joe Vitale in his book Zero Limits: the Secret Hawaiian System for Wealth, Health, Peace, and More. According to this viewpoint, everything that is experienced is our experience, meaning that it cannot be shunted off to "someone else". Even if, for example, a person feels that someone else is the cause for their problems, it is actually experienced only by the mind that frames it as a problem. Therefore, the mind itself has total responsibility for that situation. To try to deny that or think it's someone else's problem is a form of self-delusion, thinking that the problem occurs in  someone  else.
     The concept that was introduced today felt quite deep for me. I wondered, does it mean that there is truly no such thing as 'self' and  'other'? I think from the mundane perspective, there is still a separate "I" and "you". Otherwise, one would be able to taste what someone else is eating, and this does not literally happen. Similarly, all parts of the body function in different ways, so one cannot truly say that they are somehow 'identical'. A hand behaves differently from a foot, because the two have different functions and even different conditions acting upon them.  Therefore, one cannot say that they are the same. However, in another sense, hand and foot are interconnected in one body. The hand does  not 'reject' the foot because it isn't a hand, and the two function in their own ways to maintain a greater whole.
    Even though I cannot 'taste' 'your food' or see what someone else sees, in another sense, I interconnect with others in ways that are most meaningful and significant. If one is having a quarrel with someone else, they may think that "it's their problem, not mine". But in that moment, the problem is one's own problem. Otherwise, who else would be having the pain or suffering? Without the mind that experiences suffering, where would suffering be? So regardless of whether or not I think it's fair for someone else to treat me a certain way, that experience itself is completely mine to own. Another example might be when we stub our foot in the morning or encounter a poisonous snake. Am I  going to blame the door or the snake for causing me injury? I could, but blaming these for my injury doesn't change the fact that this mind I use  to experience everything is having the suffering. When I fully own the fact that all experiences come from this mind in this moment, I am no longer pretending that the problem belongs to 'someone else's' experience. The snake leaves no trace behind it!
    I think what this teaching points to is the futility and delusion of blame. It seems that sometimes people like to blame others because it gives them a sense of power to know that someone else can take care of their own experience. But  there is no such thing at all. In order to truly feel 'satisfied' in the blaming act, there needs to be some sense that someone else has "taken" the blame. But even in those cases, the experience of "someone taking the blame" is entirely created by this mind. It may not even be true that someone else takes the blame, even when it appears to be the case. What this challenges people to do is let go of their habitual tendency to try to pin their suffering onto something or someone else. The alternative is to look at the situation as a totality and ask the question: what part of this needs acceptance, and what needs care? What kind of care do I need to take with this situation or this person, to benefit all beings? Letting go of blame frees up energy for me to just take care of this present moment in the best way that I can, rather than comparing it to the previous moment or generating blame and regret.