Dealing with others, enriching as it is, often comes along with a few of difficulties. Whoever they may be—a superior at work, a colleague, a member of our family, or a mere acquaintance—others rarely behave exactly like we would want them to, quite the opposite. A colleague stole the credit for my work again, a friend of mine hurt my feelings, my mother-in-law criticized my cooking again, … the list could go on. In such moments, it is only natural to feel the need to share our troubles with someone we feel close to and to seek their support. But here’s the catch: this legitimate need to confide in someone can very easily turn into the desire to speak ill of others. And, whether we are conscious of it or not, it often does. Then, all of a sudden, rather than sharing our difficulties, we start sharing what we think about others, including, if it can make us feel better, all the bad things we think about them…

The latest articles posted on e-ostadelahi.com, together with the richness of the comments triggered by the polls published with them, have shown that the issue of backbiting is truly omnipresent in our daily life. OstadElahi inPractice is bringing this theme online again today, in a very original way. Once a character weak point has been identified, then it is a matter of controlling it. Breaking free from backbiting – First steps toward “good words”: the title of this new lab self explanatory.

Many of you reacted to the first extract from Juliette’s experience and the case study based on it: Backbiting as a main dish? What do you think? So, did the situation involve backbiting? The poll results are unequivocal: yes! However, while 89% of you considered it was Juliette’s duty to defend her colleague (“yes” or “somewhat”), only 53% believed keeping quiet was not sufficient, and 11% that keeping quiet was a mistake. Meanwhile, a total of 35% considered that keeping quiet was sufficient (19%) or “already excellent” (6%). Most of you thus agree on the theory, but opinions are split as to how to best deal with this situation in practice—the diversity of the comments testify to it.

Indeed, many insisted on the necessity to take into account the context, the personality of the guests, one’s own personality, one’s rights and duties (what do we owe to whom?), etc. In short, none of this is simple and each situation is unique.

What is it that makes a dinner successful? Delightful dishes, a nice atmosphere, guests who get along, who feel happy by the end of the evening and, on their way out, sincerely compliment their host… In fact, each guest could easily come up with a different answer. But the more interesting question might be that of the “ethical success” of such an evening, especially when complex dilemmas arise, involving the guests, one’s own ethical convictions and, sometimes, people who are not even present. Juliette had to take into consideration all three of the above in the very interesting anecdote she shares with us here. Her story will be published in two installments. This first post takes the form of a case study, describing the evening, how things got complicated, and inviting you to share your views on the theme of backbiting: What qualifies as backbiting? What doesn’t qualify as backbiting? What constitutes the best course of action in this situation and why? Put yourself in the shoes of our hostess and share your thoughts and personal experiences by answering the poll questions. The end of this real-life story will be shared with you in a second post. Let us note that Juliette did not have the luxury of the couple of weeks of reflection you will get to make a decision: make sure to take full advantage of this virtual extra time to best reflect on your own practical options were you to be faced with a similar situation.

The recent survey about the assessment of the quality of an ethical and spiritual practice, which the practical curricula offered by OstadElahi inPractice call for, prompted numerous reactions, feedback from experience, as well as some questions. In the following article, Frédéric Perrault provides us with an enlightening analysis of the ideas expressed and invites us to continue the discussion.

The results of the recent survey about the the assessment of the quality of an ethical and spiritual practice are unequivocal. A large majority of us (70%) consider that the qualitative dimension of the assessment during phase 4 (Action) of OstadElahi inPractice labs was somewhat difficult, difficult, or very difficult to implement. Some even feel somewhat helpless in the face of this exercise, referring to a kind of dizziness, to how difficult it is to know if you are being too hard or too soft on yourself, to compare yourself to others, to bring back relevant memories, etc.

Read this anecdote submitted by one of e-ostadelahi’s readers, answer the two poll questions and share your comments!

Let us note at the outset that the point is not to reach an answer that would be “right” or “wrong” in the absolute sense. Reality is far too complex to be summarised in that way. While the anecdote reported here is real, the exercise is virtual. This poll is only meant to trigger reflexion and discussion.

This post is a follow-up to a previous post entitled “Ethics in a delicate situation: what do you think?”, which presented a hypothetical case study together with a poll, to which you can still participate if you haven’t done so yet (you might want to do so before reading further). Let us begin with a few remarks about the poll results: On both the French and the English versions of the site, choice e (There are no fundamental differences between helping others and devoting sufficient time to one’s spouse: Jack could have spent that evening exclusively with his wife and still be practicing ethics) has been by far the most popular, followed by choice b for the French version (The well-being of one’s spouse should always take precedence. It should be preferred to the well-being of others and even to one’s own well-being) and choice a for the English version (Efforts of generosity always meet obstacles that must be overcome to allow progress: Jack should have expected Kelly’s opposition and prepared himself better for this test in order to prevent any conflict).

Read this anecdote, answer the two poll questions and share your comments for 2 weeks! On March 9, an article will be posted, presenting several notions relevant to this discussion along with some guidelines for a good practice.
Let us note at the outset that the point is not to reach an answer that would be “right” or “wrong” in the absolute sense. Reality is far too complex to be summarised in that way. This is the toy model of a “clinical case study”: a virtual exercise in the form a poll aimed exclusively at promoting reflection and exchanges.

In two previous articles, here and here, I wrote about the methods I tested to improve my self-knowledge, in response to which very interesting examples were also posted in the comments. Continuing this approach I went on to observe people not for the indirect messages I could draw (see here), but to single out a few character traits from their behaviour and then compare these traits with my own. Let me explain.

I have a colleague called Selma whom I greatly admire for her courage and her ability to be both respectful and fearless without servile flattery toward hierarchy. I myself lack self-confidence and am easily impressed by my superiors. I am all the more aware of this as I can compare myself to Selma. Lack of self-confidence is not in itself a harmful character trait for the progress of the soul, but it can quite easily become harmful in certain situations. For example, I was at a meeting with my boss Paul and the company head, when in the middle of the discussion Paul started criticising Louise, another of my colleagues, quite unjustly and under cover of humour. Not only did I lack the courage to correct the false statements made about Louise, but I smiled at the jokes my boss made, even though I really didn’t feel like it. After the meeting was over, I wondered how Selma, whom I had often seen in similar situations, would have reacted in my place. She would certainly have defended Louise, although with a pinch of humour to preserve Paul’s pride. This process of comparison enabled me to see the inadequacies in my own attitude much more clearly. Selma’s behaviour brought my own actions to light and helped me evaluate them more accurately. At the same time, it constitutes a source of inspiration on how to be more courageous, in practice, in ordinary everyday professional circumstances.

It is always possible to limit one’s knowledge of the principles that constitute any given philosophy, spiritual thought, religion or psychological theory to a purely theoretical level. This approach sometimes suffices to help give a general direction to one’s life and provide a reassuring framework by lending meaning to one’s experiences. To set into motion a genuine process of change in oneself it is however necessary to enter the practical realm of spirituality, namely, the process of perfection of the soul. But where to begin? What exactly should one do? The point here is not to put into practice religious rituals or to apply predefined moral prescriptions. In fact, spiritual work begins with a self-discovery. The first step is to observe oneself, as if from the outside, to carefully analyse oneself, and to “accurately assess [one’s] own attributes, positive qualities, strong points, flaws, weak points, etc.”. This approach requires a good amount of sincerity as it involves acknowledging and confronting one’s faults. It also requires a minimum of self-confidence in order not to lose hope in the face of one’s weaknesses. Finally, it is essential to keep in mind that this inventory of our personality must be done in the context of the process of spiritual perfection. In other words, the criteria with which we would measure our strengths and weaknesses and our qualities and faults should not be dictated by social trends but by ethical and spiritual values. For example, an introverted or reserved personality can appear, socially speaking, as a weak point, whereas it is neither a fault nor a quality spiritually speaking. It can even be an asset, as introverted people often have a greater capacity for self-analysis.