Neecha's Blog

At an Indian airport, our tour group of nearly 50 people had to stand in a long security check line with other passengers. The security officer checked our travel documents and sent each passenger through in intervals. People began to notice an Indian woman moving her way forward from the back of the line. She would stand near a gap in the line, then slowly walk past three more people in line. Those at the back of the line warned their friends at the front that this woman was trying to cut in line. One tour member who was third in line turned to my friend, Vanessa, who stood fourth in line and said, “If she tries to cut me, I’ll say something. But if she doesn’t, you’re on your own!”

Later, as we sat discussing this on the plane, Vanessa said that she would’ve likely done the same thing, stepping up to say something only if it affected her directly. She said it made her think of how she has the tendency to fight for her own benefit in situations like these, but not for others, like those behind her in line. When the Indian woman got to the front of the line Vanessa confessed that she had attempted to physically block the woman from cutting to the front. To her surprise, the security officer reached over and asked for the Indian woman’s passport and travel documents, speaking with her briefly and sending her back to obtain all her necessary documents. Then the security officer proceeded to send Vanessa and our other tour members through.

Vanessa assumed that the Indians were looking out for each other, like how Thais set different price marks for foreigners and Thais. I told her that I read a sign at the airport, stating that over 20 categories of people were exempt from security screening, and that this woman could’ve been one of them. We talked about how we’ve been in situations where we had properly stood in line and made it to the clerk’s window but had to go back and complete more documents. The clerk said to come right back to the window when we were done, but by that time so many new people were standing in line. How would any of them know we weren’t being rude and cutting in line?  We’ve also been on the other side of the situation, wondering why someone just walked right up and seemed to cut everyone else who was patiently waiting in line. Similarly, we’ve also cut to the front to ask a question (“should I even be in this line?”), or because we had fewer items to check out, or because the next person in line wasn’t quite ready to check out. We’ve also allowed others to cut in front of us for similar reasons. This situation could have easily been one of these, one in which we didn’t have all the information, but if we did we would understand.

So when I asked Vanessa if she could be sure that the Indian woman was taking advantage of our friends in line, she was no longer 100 percent positive. She did say that if it came down to it, she would have been ready to let the Indian woman cut in front of her. As we were speaking about this, another friend got up to get in line for the bathroom. As the line moved, he decided to stay put and talk with me and Vanessa. Someone behind him said, “if you’re going to stay here and talk, I’m going to cut ahead of you,” to which he replied, “sure, go ahead. I don’t have to go that bad anyway.”

This launched a discussion on the conditions we put in place when we allow someone to go ahead or take advantage: because we have time to spare, or because we feel it isn’t that urgent and believe we can come back to it later. Allowing the Indian woman to cut because you want to be a good person that day, or because you assume she must have a good reason. Allowing her to cut because you were near the front of the line – if you were at the back of the line you’d protest.

We believe we are yielding appropriately, like Luang Por Thoon has taught us to. However, the feeling of resentment that lingers is a good indicator that we haven’t truly yielded. It is as if we feel we have done the appropriate thing, but why do we still feel annoyed? We’ve fallen into the trap of positive thinking. If we were to find out that the Indian lady was really just cutting in line because she didn’t want to wait, how would we feel then? If we yield while assuming one outcome, we have a 50 percent chance of disappointment. When we yield, the reasoning has to only be about us and us. In this way, the external details can change but we would still be fine with it. We’re not yielding for others or being forced into the situation. It is a choice we make, we are doing it for ourselves. We know that there are two possible outcomes – one which we expect and one which we don’t – and we are ready to face either one. We’ve thought about the consequences of both outcomes and are flexible in our approach.

In the case of the Indian lady, if Vanessa had been tracking her experiences with being in various types of lines, she may have thought about situations like this beforehand. If she had considered the causes, consequences, and impermanence involved, she would’ve seen the big picture. She would have known she had many options. She could’ve asked the Indian lady a question that wasn’t biased towards the assumption that she was definitely cutting in line. And if Vanessa received a response, she would’ve been able to adapt and form a new, appropriate reply, one in which she wouldn’t need to make excuses or clean up after.

It is not about finding the right thoughts, words, or actions. It all comes from correcting the permanent perception that we tend to hold, “people always want to take advantage.” If we knew that “sometimes people take advantage, sometimes they don’t – in fact, advantage is a relative concept,” we would think, speak, and act differently. Everything follows from right perception.