DD Game and Shiva: Listening to Feedback with a Steady Mind

“The middle part was difficult to follow.” Our friend has barely finished the sentence when a reply forms in our mind: we were short of time, the instructions were unclear, and someone else had interrupted our preparation. In a reflection prompted by DD Game, we at Ishta Mel examine this swift movement from hearing feedback to defending ourselves. Remembering Shiva, we ask for the steadiness to let a comment reach our understanding before we decide what to do with it.

What are we protecting in the first few seconds?

Feedback about a piece of work can feel like a judgement of our whole ability. We hear “this explanation was unclear” and translate it into “you are incapable”. That larger accusation may never have been made, yet we begin answering it.

Recognising this expansion helps us return to the actual comment. A particular piece of work can need improvement while our effort and willingness to learn remain worthy of respect.

Our first response can therefore be physical and modest. We can let the other person finish, loosen the grip of our hands, and take an ordinary breath. We need not produce a grateful smile before we genuinely understand what was said.

A quiet “Let me think about that” may be enough. In our remembrance of Shiva, this small interval can become a deliberate practice of stillness, giving thought room to arrive before a defensive answer takes over.

Which part of the feedback can we examine?

A useful next move is to ask for a particular example. If a colleague says that our explanation was confusing, we can ask, “Where did you lose the connection?” If a friend says we seemed dismissive during a discussion, we can ask which words or action gave that impression.

The tone matters. We are seeking something concrete to understand, rather than demanding that the other person prove a case against us.

Imagine that the feedback concerns a short presentation at a local association meeting. The listener points out that we introduced a new term and immediately used it in a complicated example. We had assumed everyone understood the term.

Now the comment has a location and a possible explanation. We can look at the sequence of our work instead of arguing about whether we are generally good at speaking. A specific observation gives us something we can improve.

When DD Game becomes an occasion for discussing skill or growth, the same distinction helps us stay grounded. “You should do better” offers little direction until we know what better would look like. A concrete comment might concern our explanation, patience, or way of responding to another person.

We can bring the conversation towards observable conduct. This prevents a discussion of improvement from becoming a contest over who sounds more certain.

Can we understand before we explain?

We may have relevant context. Perhaps our preparation time was reduced or we were working from incomplete instructions. There will be room to explain that, but first we can check whether we understood the feedback: “You were following until I used the new term without explaining it. Is that right?”

Restating the point in our own words gives the other person a chance to correct a misunderstanding. It also shows whether we have actually listened.

Then context can help clarify the work rather than erase the observation. We might say, “I shortened that section because the meeting was running late. I can see that I removed something the audience needed.” Both statements can be true.

Understanding why we made a choice does not settle whether it worked well. This distinction allows us to remain fair to ourselves while still accepting information about the effect of our conduct.

What deserves acceptance, and what needs further thought?

Listening openly does not require immediate agreement with every opinion. A comment may be accurate, partly useful, too vague, or based on a different purpose for the work. We can assess it against the task's aim and the available evidence.

If one listener wants a detailed technical account while the event calls for a short introduction, we can recognise the preference without rebuilding the entire presentation around it. Thoughtful reception includes judgement.

We can also separate content from delivery. A sharply worded comment may contain a useful observation, though the sharpness makes it harder to receive. We can take time before responding and, when appropriate, say that a calmer conversation would help us understand.

Conversely, a warm comment may still be mistaken. Remembering Shiva, we seek the clarity to consider what has been said without letting either praise or irritation do all our thinking for us.

How will the feedback change the next attempt?

Useful feedback needs a place in the next piece of work. For the presentation, we might add one plain sentence explaining the term and ask a listener to check whether the example now makes sense. The change is small enough to carry out and closely connected to the observation.

Simply promising to “be clearer” leaves too much undecided. A specific adjustment turns listening into an action we can later examine.

We can keep a short record of the comment, our chosen response, and the next occasion to try it. When that occasion arrives, we check what happened. If the revised explanation helps, we retain the lesson; if confusion remains, we investigate further.

We may also return to the person who offered the feedback and explain what we changed. That closes the conversation with evidence of attention, without requiring them to take responsibility for our entire learning process.

At Ishta Mel, we can bring this spirit into conversations around DD Game and into our ordinary work. In prayer, we ask Shiva for steadiness when correction touches our pride and for clarity about the part we can use. The next time a sentence unsettles us, we may notice the first defence rising and allow it to wait.

In that pause, a useful detail can become audible. Our response then begins with understanding, and our next attempt can carry something we had previously missed.