Do Buddhists Have To Be Doormats?

[thetruth]

When people say anger can be transcended, does this mean one no longer feels anger or does it mean that they are in total control?

Edited February 20, 2008 by thetruth

[jamesc2000]

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.

I couldn't agree more with that!

Not only the arahant, no one has an own life to save.

This is hard to see because there is much written about non self and even non attachment but so little of it is internalised.

[Brucenkhamen]

When people say anger can be transcended, does this mean one no longer feels anger or does it mean that they are in total control?

Neither.

You see anger for what it is. Story line in the mind and sensations in the body that arises and passes away according to conditions.

Seeing that you see anger objectively and no longer need to buy into it, if you no longer buy into anger you are better able to choose the most apprpriate response.

[thetruth]

When people say anger can be transcended, does this mean one no longer feels anger or does it mean that they are in total control?

Neither.

You see anger for what it is. Story line in the mind and sensations in the body that arises and passes away according to conditions.

Seeing that you see anger objectively and no longer need to buy into it, if you no longer buy into anger you are better able to choose the most apprpriate response.

Thanks for the help on a subject i find difficult. When one has transcended anger and sees the anger objectively does one ever experience the subjective feeling of anger or have a physiological response to seeing anger?

[Brucenkhamen]

Thanks for the help on a subject i find difficult. When one has transcended anger and sees the anger objectively does one ever experience the subjective feeling of anger or have a physiological response to seeing anger?

If they did then they wouldn't have transecended it then would they, though I'm sure most advanced practitioners fall a bit short of what you might call "transcended".

[chutai]

Thanks for the help on a subject i find difficult. When one has transcended anger and sees the anger objectively does one ever experience the subjective feeling of anger or have a physiological response to seeing anger?

No, anger is never eliminated completely, but we learn to see it for what it is . i.e. transient. As with all emotions - all emotions are subjective - you observe them rise, acknowledge them for what they are - and observe them cease as a matter of course. However, when occasionally the feeling obdurately remains and just won't subside of it's volition, then in my own experience, I have chanted for a few minutes to overcome it : and that's worked In so much that the pervasive anger/resentment has lifted and dissolved. Another obstacle has been overcome and there's another lesson to be learned.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Very interesting thread! I would like to run by a new understanding by yall to see what you think:

Once you have shifted your identity to include everything, anger becomes useless function. The mechanisms of anger are still there, there are just no reasons to use them. Without adding any goods or bads, it is simply not a path that leads to edification.

thanks

[Brucenkhamen]

Very interesting thread! I would like to run by a new understanding by yall to see what you think:

Once you have shifted your identity to include everything, anger becomes useless function. The mechanisms of anger are still there, there are just no reasons to use them. Without adding any goods or bads, it is simply not a path that leads to edification.

thanks

Not a bad analysis.

I'd just point out that anger is a very coarse emotion, it's easy to work with, I'd expect it to be pretty much well before you have shifted your identity to include everything (if I understand what you mean by that correctly). The more subtle negative emotions are the most difficult to find freedom from..

[CuriousGeorge77]

Do you mean that anger would be diffused before identity is redefined - because it is easy to recognize and therefor change?

Is there a good Buddhist treatment of emotions somewhere? I read up on it a while back, but I'm afrid I didn't really understand that much of it. I'd like to get back ino that these days...

thanks

[Brucenkhamen]

Do you mean that anger would be diffused before identity is redefined - because it is easy to recognize and therefor change?

Yes.

Is there a good Buddhist treatment of emotions somewhere? I read up on it a while back, but I'm afrid I didn't really understand that much of it. I'd like to get back ino that these days...

There probably is but I can't think of anything particular. It's important in Buddhist mindfulness practice not to single out something like emotion, because if you do you give it a power that it isn't supposed to have, it arises and passes away just like everything else.

You start with mindfulness of the body, breathing walking etc, and when you've developed a strong objective awareness of the body you are able to observe how emotions affect your body and you can develop objective awareness of the emotions.

[Ijustwannateach]

It's my impression that very few spiritual systems require superhuman acts of people. Maybe one could put up with being attacked personally, but what if the attack came on one's family or children? Presumably by the time one is advanced enough a spiritual being not to care about being killed, one would already have given up attachments to family.... but love is far, far more dangerous and violent than hate.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Presumably, if you were advanced enough, you would mean that you have a greater understanding of the situation, and therefore more tools available to you - so you can avoid that situation much more readily. Perhaps the points of conflict are far less common, and your foresight is much greater. Still you can talk about "what ifs", but then each particular situation would be very specific.

Brucenkhamen : I would think that anger would persist - even if you 'controlled' it, until the reasons for anger didn't exist anymore. That is, until, you eliminate the need to be angry - (which we are rooting in the sense of self) then anger would still be around in some fashion - or am I mistaken?

Isn't love also rooted in the sense of self, and the flip side of hate? Goodwill not withstanding... Again, I may very well be mistaken here...

thanks

Edited February 29, 2008 by CuriousGeorge77

[thetruth]

.........Isn't love also rooted in the sense of self, and the flip side of hate? Goodwill not withstanding... Again, I may very well be mistaken here...

thanks

Thanks all for some interesting and thoughtful views.

I believe that love has no opposite. It is unique; on its own continuum. Unconditional love or "service" is as close to "the truth", God, the spirit of the universe, or whatever you may wish to call it, as I can get.

I believe love was best summed up by St Paul when writing to the Corinthians….

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Peace

[Brucenkhamen]

Brucenkhamen : I would think that anger would persist - even if you 'controlled' it, until the reasons for anger didn't exist anymore. That is, until, you eliminate the need to be angry - (which we are rooting in the sense of self) then anger would still be around in some fashion - or am I mistaken?

I think you are confusing Anger the emotion with the awareness that something needs addressing and the action of doing something. If one sees someone doing somethjing destruction or inappropriate one can respond appropriately to get them to stop or discourage them from doing it again, this is called not being a doormat among other things.

You can do that without the necessity for the emotion of anger to drive you, in fact if Anger is driving you I'd say it's more likely to have a counterproductive result.

I don't know what an enlightened being would feel physically when a situation like this arises but I'm sure they'd act appropriately whatever the sitauation.

Isn't love also rooted in the sense of self, and the flip side of hate? Goodwill not withstanding... Again, I may very well be mistaken here...

I think love is the opposite of self, real love is the breaking down of barriers that seperates you from me, those barriers are our collective selves.

[camerata]

Ajahn Brahm has a nice take on love. He says if your wife called you from Paris and told you she had run off with another guy and was the happiest she'd ever been in her life... you'd be happy for her. That's real love (i.e. unselfish love).

In Thich Nhat Hanh's biography of the Buddha there is a scene where a woman falls in love with Ananda and drugs him to make him stay with her. When the Buddha comes to take him away, he consoles the distraught woman by saying, "It's not that Ananda doesn't love you, it's just that he loves everyone equally."

[Brucenkhamen]

Ajahn Brahm has a nice take on love. He says if your wife called you from Paris and told you she had run off with another guy and was the happiest she'd ever been in her life... you'd be happy for her. That's real love (i.e. unselfish love).

Hmmm... would that make you a doormat?

[suegha]

.........Isn't love also rooted in the sense of self, and the flip side of hate? Goodwill not withstanding... Again, I may very well be mistaken here...

thanks

Thanks all for some interesting and thoughtful views.

I believe that love has no opposite. It is unique; on its own continuum. Unconditional love or "service" is as close to "the truth", God, the spirit of the universe, or whatever you may wish to call it, as I can get.

I believe love was best summed up by St Paul when writing to the Corinthians….

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Peace

My favourite piece of scripture and one that is often overlooked by so many!

[CuriousGeorge77]

I guess I have different classifications for love. I guess I classify non attatched love as goodwill, or metta. It feels like love to me, but romantic love has a different flavor to it - somewhat akin to the spice packet in Ramen noodles, I guess. Kinda hard to describe (huh - I mean adding the spice packet versus not adding it. But, upon reflection, i don't mean eating ramen with no flavor to it at all - I usually make my own sauce. So it would be adding the spice packet to the sauce or not ... no, thats not right either. hmmm. I guess I could say that the feeling of metta is much lighter that romantic love. Romantic love i slike hitting a few taste buds strongly, while metta is broader and lighter)

My current understanding is that they are related, but not the same thing. Perhaps it is the mix of things that confuses me.

[CuriousGeorge77]

That is indeed a beautiful passage. I do have one particular question, though, regarding 'knowledge'.

It is my current understanding that the pathway to enlighenment is (very generally):

knowledge --> understanding

Everything else is fundamentally secondary to this. Knowledge leads to increased ability. Understanding (however you get there) leads to a cessation of attatchments. Extend this on, and you reach enlightenment. When you see the world for what it really is ... when you really understand it .... you become enlightened.

As such, knowledge for me occupies a highly valued place in my psyche because it leads to understanding. As such, knowledge evolves, but does not pass away to be replaced by faith. Faith is a valuable tool that can help, but one that should be questioned at every step of the way.

Is there another interpretation I am missing or is there another aspect that draws you to it? thanks

[thetruth]

That is indeed a beautiful passage. I do have one particular question, though, regarding 'knowledge'.

It is my current understanding that the pathway to enlighenment is (very generally):

knowledge --> understanding

Everything else is fundamentally secondary to this. Knowledge leads to increased ability. Understanding (however you get there) leads to a cessation of attatchments. Extend this on, and you reach enlightenment. When you see the world for what it really is ... when you really understand it .... you become enlightened.

As such, knowledge for me occupies a highly valued place in my psyche because it leads to understanding. As such, knowledge evolves, but does not pass away to be replaced by faith. Faith is a valuable tool that can help, but one that should be questioned at every step of the way.

Is there another interpretation I am missing or is there another aspect that draws you to it? thanks

Interesting point. I will humbly offer my opinion, which is only my belief and not the truth.

I believe Paul was referring to 'natural knowledge' or ‘earthly knowledge’ as distinct from wisdom.

In verse 9 he makes the point that all we can know is part of the truth...For we know in part and we prophesy in part. Then in verse 10 he alludes to enlightenment…..but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. In verse 12 he refers to ‘maya’ the illusion of ephemeral nature…..Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.

The closer one comes to enlightenment, wisdom, or God the closer one comes to true love. Love is God or Nirvana.

Peace

[camerata]

Hmmm... would that make you a doormat?

I don't think so. If your wife loves someone else, there's not much you can do about it. It's a bit different from a situation where someone cheats you and you have a choice of letting it go (i.e. the doormat option) or getting aggressive about it.

When it just concerns yourself, "being a doormat" is purely subjective. If you don't feel like one, you aren't one. It's a bit more complicated if you don't feel like one but, say, your wife and kids think you are one.

[jamesc2000]

It's a bit different from a situation where someone cheats you and you have a choice of letting it go (i.e. the doormat option) or getting aggressive about it.

I am not sure a true Buddhist would choose either the option of getting cheated or being aggressive.

I believe a true Buddhist will politely but firmly decline the invitation to be cheated.

However if someone was pointing a gun at your head and asking for your money, I believe the true Buddhist will without hesitation give the mugger his money and have no feelings of loss or being robbed.

This is simply because the true Buddhist knows that he does not really exist and therefore cannot be robbed and that his money isn't really his and so doesn't mind having it taken from him.

The true Buddhist will also not relive the experience with negative feelings as he got robbed once but to relive it again means he got robbed again.

When it just concerns yourself, "being a doormat" is purely subjective. If you don't feel like one, you aren't one. It's a bit more complicated if you don't feel like one but, say, your wife and kids think you are one.

Also surely the true Buddhist will do what he or she knows to be right and will not be bothered if others think he or she is not doing what they want him or her to do.

[camerata]

I am not sure a true Buddhist would choose either the option of getting cheated or being aggressive.

I believe a true Buddhist will politely but firmly decline the invitation to be cheated.

There isn't always a choice to avoid being cheated. In a book I read about Tibet's 17th Karmapa, the author (a Western non-Buddhist) goes to see the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala. At the final bus station, a man puts his bags onto the bus and asks for money. He gives the guy a banknote but he walks off without giving any change. This is one of those situations where you just let it go or start yelling and screaming and try and shame the guy into giving back the money.

Later he asks a Tibetan monk what a Buddhist would do in that situation and the monk says he would take plenty of small change because you know that guy is not going to give any back.

This is simply because the true Buddhist knows that he does not really exist and therefore cannot be robbed and that his money isn't really his and so doesn't mind having it taken from him.

Well, I'm not talking about arahants here - just regular Buddhists. Knowing intellectually that it is only the five aggregates getting robbed is a lot different from fully realizing it at the deepest level.

Also surely the true Buddhist will do what he or she knows to be right and will not be bothered if others think he or she is not doing what they want him or her to do.

Sure, this is the ideal situation. But in reality I wonder how many of us can let go to that extent.

[jamesc2000]

Later he asks a Tibetan monk what a Buddhist would do in that situation and the monk says he would take plenty of small change because you know that guy is not going to give any back.

Hahaha! That's a great Buddhist and very practical answer! We always think of Tibetans as a spiritual people but they always claim to be a practical people!

Well, I'm not talking about arahants here - just regular Buddhists. Knowing intellectually that it is only the five aggregates getting robbed is a lot different from fully realizing it at the deepest level.

Sure, this is the ideal situation. But in reality I wonder how many of us can let go to that extent.

I don't really know much about Buddhism except from what I read here but it sounds like people are really missing out on the best bits of Buddhism!

Isn't letting go everything in Buddhism and isn't life just an opportunity to learn to let go? If there is more to Buddhism that I missed, please feel free to share.

Edited March 5, 2008 by jamesc2000

[melvinfangley]

has anyone on the boards spent some time with western monastics?- man they can be back biting and aggressive.- more like boarding schools.

Yes. when i tried to be a good Buddhist i got stepped on. The whole ethos is "it's all a learning experience".

If I was to spend some time at a Wat I think especially in the early days i'd want to be with Asians.

[Austhaied]

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!"

An eye for an eye will make us go blind.

Mahatma Ghandi.

[Plus]

has anyone on the boards spent some time with western monastics?- man they can be back biting and aggressive.- more like boarding schools.

Yes. when i tried to be a good Buddhist i got stepped on. The whole ethos is "it's all a learning experience".

I think it is.

The dificult part is to produce response guided by intellegence rather than emotions. Two issues are separate - how you deal with it internally and how you project yourself to others.

"Being a doormat" applies to both of this issues in different ways. You migh decide to suppress you urge for revenge, like a good doormat would, yet in public you might appear as a strong, decisive, and even think skinned individual, if it's necessary. In front of your children, for example.

[Yamantaka]

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.

Seen from the right perspective, Buddhists are not letting themselves be taken advantage of, they are practicing positive thought, speech and action. Each instance provides the opportunity to accumulate good karma by practicing patience, eliminating ego and striving for enlightenment. The person "taking advantage" of the Buddhist is unknowingly giving the Buddhist a great gift for which s/he will usually be thanked directly or indirectly.

[fr33space]

This seems to go along the lines of a child, or a caveman, learning about the 'nature of fire'. You learn about its dangers, its uses - and then ultimately, you learn that it's something hysterically comical to be infatuated with in the first place (but you get there partly through the infatuation).

So related to being a 'doormat', I think it's just part of the path - a learning experience - you make it part of your path. What are you if you don't? I don't thinks it's much use 'discussing' such things - you'll find out sonner or later through wisdom, although you might become a bit crispy.