Do Buddhists Have To Be Doormats?

[camerata]

Every now and then I come across some ex-Buddhist or atheist on the net who claims that the problem with Buddhism is it turns people into "doormats." In other words, Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego means that Buddhists let others take advantage of them. But this hasn't been my experience. One can still be assertive without getting angry or self-centred.

What do you think?

[jamesc2000]

Every now and then I come across some ex-Buddhist or atheist on the net who claims that the problem with Buddhism is it turns people into "doormats." In other words, Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego means that Buddhists let others take advantage of them. But this hasn't been my experience. One can still be assertive without getting angry or self-centred.

What do you think?

I think doormats are extremely useful! Our houses would be pretty dirty without them!

A doormat provides a great service to man, isn’t Buddha’s aim to alleviate the suffering of all mankind?

Now if people need to walk all over another person, its really their problem not the other person’s.

The only reason they need to walk over other people is because they do not know about Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego.

And the best way to help them is to live the 8 fold path life by example.

I also think Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego is extremely helpful to the Buddhist to be assertive without getting angry or self-centred!

[camerata]

Well, what you're saying is it's OK to be a doormat - and I have no problem with that since it's just a matter of perspective as to whether a doormat is "good" or "bad." But what I was asking is whether it's generally true or not that Buddhists let themselves be taken advantage of more than non-Buddhists.

[garro]

I suppose as someone advances in the practice they might hold on to their opinions less strongly.

They may appear more vague about the 'truth'.

They might be less forceful in their assertions.

They may take the world and themselves less seriously.

This might appear to some as being a bit of a doormat.

I have a long way to go before arriving at this stage

[lannarebirth]

Sometimes when thinking about what it means to practice well I get to thinking, "Yeah, that would be great, if only everybody I meet and deal with feels the same way". Since they don't I've learned to modify my objectives, take smaller steps, so that the opportunity for good outcomes without conflict or ill will is enhanced. If I know I've taken those steps, my attachment to the outcome becomes less.

If by doormat you mean that I have to sit there and smile and nod when someone is strongly putting forward arguments I disagree with, well, I jst wouldn't do that. I might make a counter argument (I hope skilfully) or I might just have more pressing business elsewhere.

[Austhaied]

The Dhamma has taught me to try and avoid any situation that i may end up becoming a "doormat' in.

Being able to read people and situations faster and clearer than before has helped me in every aspect of my life.

I do find from time to time that confrontation is inevitable, only now i can handle it better without going "off my handle".

Most times..

[suegha]

If someone treats you like a doormat, just kick them in the nuts and give them a good smack. Then say, "that's karma that is!"

[Brucenkhamen]

If someone treats you like a doormat, just kick them in the nuts and give them a good smack. Then say, "that's karma that is!"

Hardly a mature response.

[Brucenkhamen]

Every now and then I come across some ex-Buddhist or atheist on the net who claims that the problem with Buddhism is it turns people into "doormats." In other words, Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego means that Buddhists let others take advantage of them. But this hasn't been my experience. One can still be assertive without getting angry or self-centred.

What do you think?

I'd ask them for specific examples.

Personally I haven't found I've become a doormat. In fact I'd say the opposite is true, I no longer feel the need to gain acceptance therefore am less likely to be over "nice" to get people to like me. Also my b*llsh*t radar is much better and people I think pick up that I'm not someone who will put up nonsense so they don't give me any.

Having said that I'm much less attached to getting things my way so am more flexible and willing to compromise.

I can't say I've met any Buddhist practitioners I'd consider a doormat though.

[camerata]

I'd ask them for specific examples.

One I've heard is that Thais habitually accept lousy customer service because they are "passive/submissive Buddhists."

[Brucenkhamen]

I'd ask them for specific examples.

One I've heard is that Thais habitually accept lousy customer service because they are "passive/submissive Buddhists."

That's a Thai cultural thing not a Buddhist thing. I often think Thailand is a land of users and usees, it seems like half of Thai people are always ripping off and manipulating the other half and it's always the same people on each side of the equation. No prizes for guessing what side of the equation we belong on.

This has nothing to do with buddhism though.

I haven't observed this in Western Buddhists, or other asian Buddhist cultures have you?

[sabaijai]

The Dhamma has taught me to try and avoid any situation that i may end up becoming a "doormat' in.

Being able to read people and situations faster and clearer than before has helped me in every aspect of my life.

I do find from time to time that confrontation is inevitable, only now i can handle it better without going "off my handle".

Most times..

[camerata]

This has nothing to do with buddhism though.

Right!

I haven't observed this in Western Buddhists, or other asian Buddhist cultures have you?

I haven't really met many other Western Buddhists, which was partly the reason for my OP. My guess is that people tend to retain their basic personality after adopting Buddhism, so a submissive type will remain submissive and an assertive type will remain fairly assertive. Buddhists can still oppose exploitation and injustice, but they might go about it in a different way from non-Buddhists. I wonder if there is such as thing as "muscular Buddhism?"

The most ridiculous claim I ever heard was that the Dalai Lama lost Tibet to the Chinese because he was a submissive Buddhist unwilling to order Tibetans to fight. The fact is Tibet didn't stand a chance militarily with its standing army of 8,000 against zillions of well-armed and trained Chinese soldiers.

[uptou]

I cannot say i'm Buddhist,but i'm familiar with the books of the dalai lama,which almost seem to have the same philosophy as some psychology books ive read,eg anger/revenge is a negative emotion,etc,but for me this is where it can become abit confusing for the individuals identity,& outlook.

If for instance you were in a relationship ,& somebody broke into your home & attacked your girlfreind,& you then killed the intruder,can you really call yourself Buddhist,or even for just being in a sexual relationship,or eating meat(the harming of another).

Western culture for me has a sort of Christian eye for eye attitude.If you look at most of the movies that come from the west (& here aswell),they are usually violent,& end in revenge,with the most blood thirsty death possible,& we lap it up.If the villain hasn't been dealt with in good measure we feel cheated.

To me most people in working class Britain respect this eye for an eye attitude,even if they dont admit it.

Edited February 15, 2008 by uptou

[lannarebirth]

Sometimes when thinking about what it means to practice well I get to thinking, "Yeah, that would be great, if only everybody I meet and deal with feels the same way". Since they don't I've learned to modify my objectives, take smaller steps, so that the opportunity for good outcomes without conflict or ill will is enhanced. If I know I've taken those steps, my attachment to the outcome becomes less.

If by doormat you mean that I have to sit there and smile and nod when someone is strongly putting forward arguments I disagree with, well, I jst wouldn't do that. I might make a counter argument (I hope skilfully) or I might just have more pressing business elsewhere.

I take it all back. Today I was a doormat. Almost gave me an aneurism. Tomorrow will be better, hopefully.i

[Brucenkhamen]

I cannot say i'm Buddhist,but i'm familiar with the books of the dalai lama,which almost seem to have the same philosophy as some psychology books ive read,eg anger/revenge is a negative emotion,etc,but for me this is where it can become abit confusing for the individuals identity,& outlook.

I'd agree that anger and revenge are negative emotions, but I think one can choose other ways to respond without being a doormat.

One can make it clear that the behaviour that you are the victim of is not acceptable without resorting to anger or revenge, it may not modify the behaviour of the doormatee but at least you haven't rolled over and let them walk all over you either.

It's like disciplining your child really, maybe you have to withdraw privilidges or make them take time out but if you can do it without anger or revenge then hopefully it helps clarify boundaries so it won't happen in future.

Also one can be angry without being consumed by it, mindfulness helps you to see it arise and then choose a balanced and approprite way to express it.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[IMChris]

Every now and then I come across some ex-Buddhist or atheist on the net who claims that the problem with Buddhism is it turns people into "doormats." In other words, Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego means that Buddhists let others take advantage of them. But this hasn't been my experience. One can still be assertive without getting angry or self-centred.

What do you think?

Are you talking about Pride ? Because that can be hurt. A buddist nevers subscribes to this. Your dignety cant be hurt or taken away from. I dont understand how one could get the advantage of me unless Im willing to give it.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Every now and then I come across some ex-Buddhist or atheist on the net who claims that the problem with Buddhism is it turns people into "doormats." In other words, Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego means that Buddhists let others take advantage of them. But this hasn't been my experience. One can still be assertive without getting angry or self-centred.

What do you think?

I think doormats are extremely useful! Our houses would be pretty dirty without them!

A doormat provides a great service to man, isn't Buddha's aim to alleviate the suffering of all mankind?

Now if people need to walk all over another person, its really their problem not the other person's.

The only reason they need to walk over other people is because they do not know about Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego.

And the best way to help them is to live the 8 fold path life by example.

I also think Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego is extremely helpful to the Buddhist to be assertive without getting angry or self-centred!

55555

Great answer!! I'd also like to echo a requestioning of what it means to "be a doormat", and whether being a "doormat" is such a negative thing.

When a potential doormat situation presents itself, most of the time it is simply not the result of intentional actions on the part of someone else to treat me less than human. It is most often a mutual misunderstanding that can be equitably and cheerfully cleared up. Failing that, I would also echo the sentiments in this thread that if someone is treating me like a doormat that is usually their problem not mine. On occaision, it becomes my problem as well, at which point action of some sort is required, not just to defend my self, but right action requires it. If I let this person treat me less than human, they are also treating themself less than human. It is also a very strong indicator that they behave this way with others. It is not my responsibility to "fix" this person, but I do feel it is my respoinsibility to do something to directly address the issue at hand, and to do it in a way that is, so far as I can tell, ultimately positive.

This often means suddenly talking about things in very basic terms, with all references to the current situation removed. (That is an observation I just made about myself, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to think about it!) It has also meant simply sitting down, knocking the other person out of the mode they were in, and allowed them to see it from my perspective.

I would love to hear other's strategies in such situations! Especially for those actively out to mistreat others. I have some very negative emotions associated with some people I have known, and I am actively trying to diffuse that negative emotion, but I don't really know how.

Anyway, what specifically happens in such cases quite often does not impact the course of a single day, much less beyond that. If I feel like I have made a positive impact, either for myself, for the person who is acting like a cad, or for others associated with the situation (including those that the cad may be less caddish with) then it has been a good thing, and I can leave with a good feeling. No negativity required.

[suegha]

If someone treats you like a doormat, just kick them in the nuts and give them a good smack. Then say, "that's karma that is!"

Hardly a mature response.

I really think you knew I was joking!

[chutai]

Every now and then I come across some ex-Buddhist or atheist on the net who claims that the problem with Buddhism is it turns people into "doormats." In other words, Right Speech, conflict avoidance and getting control of the ego means that Buddhists let others take advantage of them. But this hasn't been my experience. One can still be assertive without getting angry or self-centred.

What do you think?

Practicing Buddhism natrally equates with a series of manifestations that are desirable attributes; loving kindness, compassion and generosity being but three inconspicuous benefits of practice. Wisdom is another. To manifest a generous nature is not to be trodden on, just as neither is 'having a good heart' necessarily equated with being financially generous on each occasion. Sometimes the road to H-ll is pathed with good intentions.

There are times when it goes against our wisdom to say yes when an inexpedient advantage is being taken of ones 'good nature'.

Buddhists are not devoid of the same human characteristics that are in all humans from the lower worlds of H-ll, Hunger, Animality and Anger through to all other manifestations of the human psyche right up to Buddhood itself. In fact, each of what is known as The Ten Worlds contains the seeds of all the others in mutual co-dependence and origination. But this is to go off on a tangent somewhat.

The important thing is to realise each negative life-state contains a positive aspect too. ANGER is a condition in which one is dominated by the selfish ego, competitiveness, arrogance and the need to be superior in all things. But its positive side is passionate energy, a desire for excellence and, above all, a burning abhorrence of injustice. It can be something that has positive benefits as well the more destructive ones that we generally associate with that particular life-condition.

In Mahayana ,esp. Nichiren, we tend not to deny our humanity, but to transform it into something wholly better by changing poison into medicine. So if we are being taken adavantage of it's quite right to display indignation, as that same indignation can be more than only related to our small ego (anger) , but can actually be a manifestation of our own Buddha nature - universal compassion against injustice, for instance.

But it is only with sustained Buddhist practice that we are able not only to observe the Ten Worlds operating within us, but are actually capable of untilising them all for the benefit of all that is interrelated.

To allow oneself to be used as a "doormat" is to slander our own Buddha nature: but there are ocassions when our own small ego mistakes letting go of attachments as being taken advantage of. This is where our maturity in wisdom, gained through practice and experience, becomes a necessary tool for discernment.

Afterword:

For anyone interested in exploring further the theory of the Ten Worlds, then the below link seems to give a quite adequate explanation.

http://www.nbaa.tv/IntroBook/ch6.html

Edited February 15, 2008 by chutai

[chutai]

"Sometimes the road to H-ll is pathed with good intentions."

[thetruth]

I have some very negative emotions associated with some people I have known, and I am actively trying to diffuse that negative emotion, but I don't really know how.

Pray and / or meditate for the people you have negative feelings for. Wish for them to be blessed with peace and love. Do this twice a day and whenever you start to feel resentment. I promise the negative feelings will dissipate.

A resentment is like taking some poison and waiting for the other person to die. Or pissing on your own leg

As for the question of doormats. Someone who truly lives the principles of Buddhism will not allow others to take advantage of their love and kindness. To do so would be unloving and unkind to the other and themselves; who are no more than, but no less than, each other.

Peace and Love

[fire and ice]

ANGER is a condition in which one is dominated by the selfish ego, competitiveness, arrogance and the need to be superior in all things.

This is wildly inaccurate, and possibly the writer's own ego trying to justify his/her own fear of expressing anger.

Confusion seems to be the case in this forum about anger:

Anger is in fact a natural feeling which should be expressed emotionally when it is appropriate - it is our natural way of defending oneself when one is under attack.

Anger is **ALWAYS** a DEFENSE mechanism; defense of either a genuine attack, or of a perceived attack.

Expressing one's anger when one is genuinely under some kind of attack is appropriate. If someone was under violent attack, then violent anger to defend oneself may be the most appropriate response.

However, when it is only your EGO under attack then you are not really under attack are you? You merely mis-perceive there to be an attack via the perceptive filters of your ego. It is when someone feels (and/or expresses) egoic-anger that is a problem to be dealt with. In modern society, most (but not all) anger expressed would fall into this category.

...dealing with it does not necessarily mean trying to stop or suppress it - usually the most healing path will be the most fearful one, whatever that may be for the person in question.

The flipside is that (for a hefty percentage of people in the world), many are afraid of their own anger. They bottle it up and hold onto it, failing to express it when it IS appropriate, let alone when it is not. These people will avoid potentially conflicting situations. Such people also often point the finger at those who do get angry and try to justify their own ego (which is geared to hold onto anger), by labelling anger as bad, negative, wrong etc... Such people may even seek to become a buddhist in order to hide from their egoic fear of anger!

[thetruth]

ANGER is a condition in which one is dominated by the selfish ego, competitiveness, arrogance and the need to be superior in all things.

This is wildly inaccurate, and possibly the writer's own ego trying to justify his/her own fear of expressing anger.

Confusion seems to be the case in this forum about anger:

Anger is in fact a natural feeling which should be expressed emotionally when it is appropriate - it is our natural way of defending oneself when one is under attack.......

Very well articulated. In my journey i have struggled with confusion and uncertainty around the subject of anger. I now believe that it's not bad/wrong/a sin to FEEL anger.

With wisdom and compassion comes the ability to appropriately express that anger in a loving and respectful manner. The absence of anger is not love.

Peace & Love

[CuriousGeorge77]

Dude - that is a great way to describe anger. I've never thought about it that way, but it makes great sense! The definition of "emotion" I am currently holding is that "Emotions" are mental states that affect perception in such a way as to affect action.

How would you compare/contrast fear from anger? One ould think that running away from anger and protecting oneself would be related.

I would also like to ask you what you (and others!) think about this : While anger may originally be to provide a defense mechanism, many brain circuitry.functions serve other (sometimes quite different) purposes as well. could it be that your absolute " **ALWAYS** " ?

Re: the truth:

Thanks - I will try that. I do it already sometimes, but I expect not enough to actually change much.

thanks

[PeaceBlondie]

The doormat/overly submissive theme is a common discussion subject in Christian pacifism. In English, pacifism (active peace making through actions of love) is often confused with passivism (not acting). There is common, popular misunderstanding of the active, nonviolent lifestyle of proper Christian pacifism. I suspect that Western Buddhists would encounter this same misunderstanding by non-Buddhists.

Once your belief system has rejected personal violence, you have limited your response options, and would be very slow to escalate a confrontation. Once your belief system has done that, you would be motivated to explore the remaining options much more closely than the typical Rambo.

[chutai]

Confusion seems to be the case in this forum about anger:

To the contary there seems to be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding (from a Buddhist perpective) in what you write

Anger is in fact a natural feeling which should be expressed emotionally when it is appropriate - it is our natural way of defending oneself when one is under attack.......

Half of what you say is correct, the reaction questionable.

The good half is that we agree, as Mahayana Buddhism teaches that Anger is intrinsic to life itself and can never be eradicated.

BUT, however, it can, be transcended. Buddhism equates Anger with what might be called the - lesser self, the self of the ego, of selfish desires, of narrow, sectarian identity. But every individual also possesses a "greater self", the self that desires the good of others, and that can be encouraged to grow and develop, given the right stimulus.

This "greater self" is what Ashoka (1) and Ajatashatru (2) discovered through their contact with Buddhism. Other people have discovered it through different religions and philosophies, or even through great works of art. But however one unearths it, it's characterised by a sense of unity and oneness, so that the superficial differences between people become much less significant than our shared humanity.

(1) The ancient Indian king, Ashoka, who lived some three hundred years before Christ, is often held up by historians as the model of enlightened, compassionate rule. But Ashoka was originally a bloody tyrant who conquered most of the Indian subcontinent at the cost of tremendous death and suffering.

But then, realising the agony he'd caused, he was overcome with remorse and turned to Buddhism. He renounced violence and declared that henceforth he would conquer peacefully, through Buddhist teachings - the Dharma - alone. Which he did, instituting laws and policies based on Buddhist principles, and ushering in an era of peace, prosperity and tolerance, especially towards other religions, for which he is still celebrated.

(2) Shakyamuni Buddha (the historical Buddha) was persecuted by the evil king Ajatashatru, who tried to kill him on several occasions and, indeed, did kill many of his followers.

But then the king fell seriously ill. Huge, leprous sores broke out over his entire body, and his death seemed imminent. At which point Shakyamuni took pity on Ajatashatru and, despite the objections of his followers, went to visit him. Moved by Shakyamuni's compassion, the king repented of his past misdeeds, converted to Buddhism - and recovered to live for many more years.

Moreover, when Shakyamuni himself eventually died, it was Ajatashatru who convened the First Buddhist Council to ensure that his teachings would not be lost. In other words, it's thanks to this once evil king, the Buddha's sworn enemy, that Buddhism was preserved for posterity.

It's because of this fundamental belief in the inherent capacity of individuals - even evil individuals - to transform their lives, that Buddhism has such abiding faith in the possibility of a peaceful world.

This is wildly inaccurate, and possibly the writer's own ego trying to justify his/her own fear of expressing anger.

In fact the opposite is the case to what you judge to be correct.

It's ANGER that is identified with the workings of the ego and not an analysis of what constitutes the component parts of it. ANGER is that part of the consciousness in which the self is aware of its own uniqueness and its apparent separation from the rest of the universe.

Nichiren Daishonin describes the chief characteristic of ANGER as 'perversity', alluding to the fundamental distortion of perspective that occurs when the ego places itself at the centre of the universe.

"Anger is the state of supreme self-centredness in which we believe we are fundamentally better than other people and in which we delight in showing this supposed superiority to the world.

Anger is in fact a natural feeling which should be expressed emotionally when it is appropriate - it is our natural way of defending oneself when one is under attack.......

According to the Buddhism that I practice and I think is generally accepted, ANGER is the root of what sets us apart from others - our sense of self, our identity. This includes not just our personal identity, but also our social identity - as man or woman, black or white - Thai, European; whatever. It's whenever we feel this sense of identity is threatened, our tendency as human beings is to rush to defend it - mentally, verbally, or even physically, with violence. Anger is thus characterised by conflict, in varying degrees.

BUT as I stated above and you seem to have overlooked, anger does have its positive aspects - our feelings of self-worth are rooted in this condition, for example, as is our sense of fairness and justice; and the desire to excel has driven individuals to great achievements.

But all too often the self ruled by ANGER finds it hard, in its arrogance, to identify with or respect others; difficult to acknowledge they might have a point worthy of true consideration; and virtually impossible to concede that they might actually be right, for that would be to admit inferiority.

ANGER - in the Buddhist sense - is thus the fundamental cause for war, because to kill other human beings, for whatever reason - even with a sigh of regret at 20,000 feet at the possibility of "collateral damage" below - is to show them supreme disrespect. It's the ultimate expression of the "I am right, you are wrong" mentality, even if you are right and they are wrong.

Expressing one's anger when one is genuinely under some kind of attack is appropriate. If someone was under violent attack, then violent anger to defend oneself may be the most appropriate response.

I'm distinctly prompted to remember this story at this juncture wherein the Buddhist approach to aggression is illustrated in the following story.

An elderly Buddhist monk is trying to convince his friend of the folly of violence. But his friend is having none of it. 'So what would you do, then,' he asks, 'if you walked round a corner and found yourself trapped by a bunch of thugs who threatened to kill you, and you realised that the only way out was to fight?' The monk thought for a moment, then replied, 'I wouldn't walk round that corner.'

In other words, the Buddhist approach asks what is preferable - to activate our innate wisdom and compassion to prevent unpleasant situations developing? Or to wait until a crisis and/or conflict erupts - or worse still, actually helping to cause it by our innate hostility - and then find ourselves having to confront grim and extremely limited options.

...people may even seek to become a buddhist in order to hide from their egoic fear of anger!

I cannot say why each person becomes a Buddhist. But what I can say is that to comprehend the Buddhist attitude more clearly, you need to recognise what Buddhism holds most dear - the supreme dignity of human life. Buddhism asserts that nothing is of higher value than life itself; no god, or state, religion or ideology. In the words of Nichiren:

"Life itself is the most precious of all treasures. Even the treasures of the entire universe cannot equal the value of a single human life."

Buddhism is based upon respect and the transformation of ones being - changing ones karma, which includes our conditioned responses. Another Buddhist story :

There was a man galloping past another on his horse, another standing watching him go by shouted 'where are you going ?' to which the man on the horse replied 'I don't know , ask the horse'.

When we practice Buddhism we learn not to be lead by our instincts, but rather to be in control of our mind.

I hope that this has been of some benefit to you. Or at least provided food for thought.

[camerata]

Confusion seems to be the case in this forum about anger:

Anger is in fact a natural feeling which should be expressed emotionally when it is appropriate - it is our natural way of defending oneself when one is under attack.

Well, that may be the way you look at it but it isn't the way a Buddhist looks at it. Just because feelings are natural biological reactions doesn't mean they have to be expressed. Whether anger is a result of a real attack on one's person (very rare) or a perceived attack on the ego, it's still an extreme manifestation of aversion. Since Buddhists aspire to perfect equanimity, there would be no point in indulging feelings of aversion. Ultimately, what a Buddhist is trying to achieve is a state where there is no "self" to be attacked. An arahant, for example, would not angrily kill someone even to save his own life. This makes perfect sense to Buddhists.

[thetruth]

Confusion seems to be the case in this forum about anger:

Anger is in fact a natural feeling which should be expressed emotionally when it is appropriate - it is our natural way of defending oneself when one is under attack.

Well, that may be the way you look at it but it isn't the way a Buddhist looks at it. Just because feelings are natural biological reactions doesn't mean they have to be expressed. Whether anger is a result of a real attack on one's person (very rare) or a perceived attack on the ego, it's still an extreme manifestation of aversion. Since Buddhists aspire to perfect equanimity, there would be no point in indulging feelings of aversion. Ultimately, what a Buddhist is trying to achieve is a state where there is no "self" to be attacked. An arahant, for example, would not angrily kill someone even to save his own life. This makes perfect sense to Buddhists.

Would a arahant kill, without anger, to save his own life?

Personally, the smoke still rises, but no longer clings to the chimmney walls.

Peace

[camerata]

Would a arahant kill, without anger, to save his own life?

I seriously doubt it since an arahant doesn't have an "own life" to save.