Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Being Non-Confrontational... Is This Part Of Buddhist Practice ?
bullies: providing a sense of perspective since.. er, time immemorial. that's my positive take on things.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@karasti said:
Bullies, most often, were victims of bullying themselves, often by their parents. Or they witness their parents doing it. It is their way of trying to regain a sense of power in their life. When they are bullied, they find someone they perceive as weak to hold power over. Obviously, this does not mean we allow them to bully, but I think going to the root of the problem with the bully would have more success rather than simply punishing them. Our society doesn't do this well. We never seek the root of the problem, we only like to trim the weeds on the top so that they grow back thicker than ever.
I've thought about this a lot, and finding the root cause isn't the hard part, it's that the root cause is like an iceberg, tiny on the surface and unmeasurable down below.
A child bully is bullied and exposed to violence at home (besides his parents contributing their genes). The parent(s) are deeply ingrained in a victim mentality so they are unable or unwilling to look at the issues from a wider perspective. To make a real change in the child bully, it's like you'd have to pluck him out of his family, which no one is going to agree is a good thing (just for that reason). His parents were similarly exposed to violence and bullied, and found a 'solid' sense of themselves as victims in a hostile to them world where their obnoxious behavior is 'necessary'. And so forth
Even though it's slow going, I like how some school curriculums are including social skills like managing impulses, teaching empathy and conflict management. Even if a child goes right back home to hell, as long as they attend school they are getting an alternative message and held to better standards. Just being exposed to 'alternatives' ought to make some difference.
Bullying (in the most general sense) is just beginning to become important enough to change big things like institutions. When I was a kid and bullied, I was told to hit them back! I couldn't. My father shamed me for not fighting back (he's an idiot btw). I like how the 'consciousness' is raising little by little, maybe that's good enough?
@Hamsaka has made a very good point. It's very nice -- and just makes one feel warm all over -- to say we have helprf the bully, in addition to helping the victim. The problem is -- in my view -- that most bullies learn bullying from their fathers (and sometimes mothers), and we cannot extricate them from that home environment. So that dominant influence is going to remain no matter what we do at the school (for example).
I am thinking here of a very specific family that was at my school. The father looked like Jesse Ventura and bullied everyone...including his wife and children. The son was our worst bully. I couldn't change what was happening at home. But what I could do is create consequences at school that would make it very clear that "you" are not going to bully other children here at my school, and if you do, you are going to suffer harsher and harsher penalties, up to, and including a recommendation for expulsion, and when possible, police charges. That was in my power to do. Changing the home environment and the child's home role models was not within my power to do.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Good for you. In the very least the boy had the experience of being held responsible and hopefully experienced the POSITIVE consequences of being a decent person. They won't dominate him but the experiences are there . . . we hope :agree:
I imagine as a school principal it was scraping the bottom of the barrel to rally yourself for another go sometimes. I like to think "you never know", maybe the bullying doesn't go bone deep, but the child has never experienced a different erm 'economy'.
I'm past the 'warm all over' when I think of how to help bullies, and more recently am getting over wanting them all exported to another planet (well, some of them). At least when a person tries to use aggression with me, they'll have a new experience for themselves. That's the only time I can do anything about the bigger problem.
@ownerof1000oddsocks said:
bullies: providing a sense of perspective since.. er, time immemorial. that's my positive take on things.
You are not left with positive takes on bullies when you have been in contact with a bunch of them long enough.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Karasti the penal system is just a business like any other. If we started fixing the root of the problem we would have fewer inmates. Fewer inmates means less revenue.
Forget about helping criminals, just lock them up with other criminals so they can conspire.
Actually, we are all different.
We all have different opinions. Different tastes. Different hobbies. Different mindsets.
There is a way to exchange different points of view, sharing in our diversity without getting to the point of confrontation.
Confrontation is more about two people with different opinions, too set in their own particular ways, who can't accept the possibility that other viewpoints exist too.
@ourself said:
Karasti the penal system is just a business like any other. If we started fixing the root of the problem we would have fewer inmates. Fewer inmates means less revenue.
Forget about helping criminals, just lock them up with other criminals so they can conspire.
Repeat business is good business.
I'm sorry to disagree -- to an extent -- but to be honest, I think that viewpoint is becoming a bit cliche and oversimplistic.
First, it seems to suppose that the majority of people in prison don't need to be there. For example, in California in 2013 there were about 5 murders per day. Do you think that murderers don't need to be imprisoned?
Second, the criminal justice system is a huge burden on state budgets, and some states have resorted to ignoring certain crimes, releasing prisoners early, etc. So the state government and taxpayers are not benefiting from the "business" aspect of the criminal justice system.
Where the business aspect comes in is when corporations run prisons and other aspects of the criminal justice system. And why has that come to pass? Because state governments want to eliminate the cost of pensions and health care expenditures for state employees.
It is very easy to say, "If we started fixing the root of the problem we would have fewer inmates." How would you go about fixing the root problems that cause all those people to be imprisoned (it would be a task that would boggle the mind), and how would you pay for it (which boggles the mind even more).
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited December 2014
@Vinlyn that's ok, we've disagreed before and I feel neither of us do so maliciously.
I guess I should clarify that I'm from a Canadian vantage point where violent crime isn't quite as severe.
The first cause of the business aspect of indecent behavior is the war on drugs. It's a complete sham and so far has done absolutely nothing to curb usage. Other places have treated it as a mental health issue, not a criminal one and use goes down. As obviously does violent crime.
Sorry I can't post a link to that info but I will find it later today and link from my laptop. This phone kinda sucks.
Another one is the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is something to work towards but if one doesn't ask or know to ask they sit and play cards with other criminals finding out how everyone got caught.
Trust me, I've been there. A long time ago but still.
To me, Buddhist practice entails choosing one's battles carefully. Many, and probably most, disagreements that we impulsively feel towards people or situations are not worth our energy. Either we are being too stuck in our own ways or whatever it is that's upsetting us can be easily maneuvered around.
But there are inevitably times when we need to stand up for what is right. Knowing when those times are is the trick. Another trick is how we stand up-- do we skillfully promote what we believe in or do we just stir up drama and increase discord? Knowing these two tricks is what wisdom is, in my opinion.
I sense that there's this idea out there that Buddhists are always meek and agreeble, avoiding conflict at all costs. This could be somewhat true based on how some sects in the West interpret Buddhism. However, my Zen teacher often says when questions like this come up that being a floor mat is not correct practice. Correct practice is correctly handling a given situation and there are few, if any, actions that are universally right or wrong.
9
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Now, that was a really nice (sagacious) post, @shadowleaver.
Others have said the same thing in different words and I agree.
But maybe Buddhism has the tendency to over-valuate patience and to dismiss the forceful approach as anger (anger being a major defilement).
For instance in this Jataka: http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/id41.html
In this Jataka the Bodhisattva preaches “the doctrine of patience” without a blink or a tremble in his voice, when his hands, feet, ears and nose are cut off by the executioner of the King (a King who has a bad hangover).
Fortunately at the end of the story the law of karma makes the earth split in two, and the King falls into the lowest hell.
Could this be a downside of faith in karma?
People could believe that an irrational act of patience will be rewarded in the further future and an effective outburst of anger will have bad consequences that we cannot see immediately.
They could be tempted to be a doormat on the basis of their Buddhism?
Not sure I am of the sublime patience attainment mentioned by @zenff. Luckily our monarch is largely a symbolic constitutional tradition . . .
"God Save the Queen"
Sex Pistols
However there is another tactic taught and employed by the Buddha on numerous occasions; Noble Silence.
We do not have to, nor should we engage with everyone at all times just because they wish this or demand it. Nothing useful or functional to be gained? No need to engage. Just observe how one feels and responds to ignorance arising in oneself or others . . . Noble Silence. Opportunities abound . . .
@shadowleaver, that's possibly the wisest post of the thread.
It brought back to my memory a dilemma at the school once. A first year teacher from a mostly rural state had come to our D.C. suburban school to teach English. She had been an award winning student teacher, but of course, when you're student teaching you have the constant crutch of the master teacher at your side. Within days of the start of the school year, we realized she was not just struggling (as many first year teachers do), but was drowning. So we called in reinforcements and spent a great deal of time assisting her with teaching strategies, but she just couldn't master them. Even if one of our administrator's worked out a lesson plan with her and demonstrated the lesson plan during the first period class, the first year teacher would collapse during the second period. Next we called in a dsitrict specialist in English, and she spent a great deal of time with the first year teacher. Improvement was nil. Finally, we had to fire the first year teacher. Certainly firing a young teacher with a mission in her soul was not a very Buddhist thing to do. BUT THE ALTERNATIVE -- MAKING 14O STUDENTS SUFFER THROUGH A YEAR OF INADEQUATE INSTRUCTION IN WHAT IS, PERHAPS, THE MOST IMPORTANT CORE SUBJECT -- NOT A VERY BUDDHIST THING TO DO EITHER.
You dont have to attend every arguement you're invited to.
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Very insightful, @shadowleaver; currently in dispute with someone who previously made an awful lot of things very difficult for both me and my H. We contemplate each move, because each move must be fuelled by correct motivation, not a sense of revenge or righteous indignation....
Comments
bullies: providing a sense of perspective since.. er, time immemorial. that's my positive take on things.
I've thought about this a lot, and finding the root cause isn't the hard part, it's that the root cause is like an iceberg, tiny on the surface and unmeasurable down below.
A child bully is bullied and exposed to violence at home (besides his parents contributing their genes). The parent(s) are deeply ingrained in a victim mentality so they are unable or unwilling to look at the issues from a wider perspective. To make a real change in the child bully, it's like you'd have to pluck him out of his family, which no one is going to agree is a good thing (just for that reason). His parents were similarly exposed to violence and bullied, and found a 'solid' sense of themselves as victims in a hostile to them world where their obnoxious behavior is 'necessary'. And so forth
Even though it's slow going, I like how some school curriculums are including social skills like managing impulses, teaching empathy and conflict management. Even if a child goes right back home to hell, as long as they attend school they are getting an alternative message and held to better standards. Just being exposed to 'alternatives' ought to make some difference.
Bullying (in the most general sense) is just beginning to become important enough to change big things like institutions. When I was a kid and bullied, I was told to hit them back! I couldn't. My father shamed me for not fighting back (he's an idiot btw). I like how the 'consciousness' is raising little by little, maybe that's good enough?
@Hamsaka has made a very good point. It's very nice -- and just makes one feel warm all over -- to say we have helprf the bully, in addition to helping the victim. The problem is -- in my view -- that most bullies learn bullying from their fathers (and sometimes mothers), and we cannot extricate them from that home environment. So that dominant influence is going to remain no matter what we do at the school (for example).
I am thinking here of a very specific family that was at my school. The father looked like Jesse Ventura and bullied everyone...including his wife and children. The son was our worst bully. I couldn't change what was happening at home. But what I could do is create consequences at school that would make it very clear that "you" are not going to bully other children here at my school, and if you do, you are going to suffer harsher and harsher penalties, up to, and including a recommendation for expulsion, and when possible, police charges. That was in my power to do. Changing the home environment and the child's home role models was not within my power to do.
Good for you. In the very least the boy had the experience of being held responsible and hopefully experienced the POSITIVE consequences of being a decent person. They won't dominate him but the experiences are there . . . we hope :agree:
I imagine as a school principal it was scraping the bottom of the barrel to rally yourself for another go sometimes. I like to think "you never know", maybe the bullying doesn't go bone deep, but the child has never experienced a different erm 'economy'.
I'm past the 'warm all over' when I think of how to help bullies, and more recently am getting over wanting them all exported to another planet (well, some of them). At least when a person tries to use aggression with me, they'll have a new experience for themselves. That's the only time I can do anything about the bigger problem.
You are not left with positive takes on bullies when you have been in contact with a bunch of them long enough.
Forget about helping criminals, just lock them up with other criminals so they can conspire.
Repeat business is good business.
Actually, we are all different.
We all have different opinions. Different tastes. Different hobbies. Different mindsets.
There is a way to exchange different points of view, sharing in our diversity without getting to the point of confrontation.
Confrontation is more about two people with different opinions, too set in their own particular ways, who can't accept the possibility that other viewpoints exist too.
I'm sorry to disagree -- to an extent -- but to be honest, I think that viewpoint is becoming a bit cliche and oversimplistic.
First, it seems to suppose that the majority of people in prison don't need to be there. For example, in California in 2013 there were about 5 murders per day. Do you think that murderers don't need to be imprisoned?
Second, the criminal justice system is a huge burden on state budgets, and some states have resorted to ignoring certain crimes, releasing prisoners early, etc. So the state government and taxpayers are not benefiting from the "business" aspect of the criminal justice system.
Where the business aspect comes in is when corporations run prisons and other aspects of the criminal justice system. And why has that come to pass? Because state governments want to eliminate the cost of pensions and health care expenditures for state employees.
It is very easy to say, "If we started fixing the root of the problem we would have fewer inmates." How would you go about fixing the root problems that cause all those people to be imprisoned (it would be a task that would boggle the mind), and how would you pay for it (which boggles the mind even more).
Interesting article on the general topic (note that it is a couple of years old): http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45049812/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/state-budget-cuts-clog-criminal-justice-system/#.VIGuTHvth8E
I guess I should clarify that I'm from a Canadian vantage point where violent crime isn't quite as severe.
The first cause of the business aspect of indecent behavior is the war on drugs. It's a complete sham and so far has done absolutely nothing to curb usage. Other places have treated it as a mental health issue, not a criminal one and use goes down. As obviously does violent crime.
Sorry I can't post a link to that info but I will find it later today and link from my laptop. This phone kinda sucks.
Another one is the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is something to work towards but if one doesn't ask or know to ask they sit and play cards with other criminals finding out how everyone got caught.
Trust me, I've been there. A long time ago but still.
Actually @ourself, you and I agree on plenty, and once in a while disagree (and I think rather pleasantly; you're a great poster).
I guess my bottom line here for me is that the solutions to the issue aren't easily achieved.
To me, Buddhist practice entails choosing one's battles carefully. Many, and probably most, disagreements that we impulsively feel towards people or situations are not worth our energy. Either we are being too stuck in our own ways or whatever it is that's upsetting us can be easily maneuvered around.
But there are inevitably times when we need to stand up for what is right. Knowing when those times are is the trick. Another trick is how we stand up-- do we skillfully promote what we believe in or do we just stir up drama and increase discord? Knowing these two tricks is what wisdom is, in my opinion.
I sense that there's this idea out there that Buddhists are always meek and agreeble, avoiding conflict at all costs. This could be somewhat true based on how some sects in the West interpret Buddhism. However, my Zen teacher often says when questions like this come up that being a floor mat is not correct practice. Correct practice is correctly handling a given situation and there are few, if any, actions that are universally right or wrong.
Now, that was a really nice (sagacious) post, @shadowleaver.
@Dakini
Others have said the same thing in different words and I agree.
But maybe Buddhism has the tendency to over-valuate patience and to dismiss the forceful approach as anger (anger being a major defilement).
For instance in this Jataka:
http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/id41.html
In this Jataka the Bodhisattva preaches “the doctrine of patience” without a blink or a tremble in his voice, when his hands, feet, ears and nose are cut off by the executioner of the King (a King who has a bad hangover).
Fortunately at the end of the story the law of karma makes the earth split in two, and the King falls into the lowest hell.
Could this be a downside of faith in karma?
People could believe that an irrational act of patience will be rewarded in the further future and an effective outburst of anger will have bad consequences that we cannot see immediately.
They could be tempted to be a doormat on the basis of their Buddhism?
Interesting points guys,
Not sure I am of the sublime patience attainment mentioned by @zenff. Luckily our monarch is largely a symbolic constitutional tradition . . .
"God Save the Queen"
Sex Pistols
However there is another tactic taught and employed by the Buddha on numerous occasions; Noble Silence.
We do not have to, nor should we engage with everyone at all times just because they wish this or demand it. Nothing useful or functional to be gained? No need to engage. Just observe how one feels and responds to ignorance arising in oneself or others . . . Noble Silence. Opportunities abound . . .
@shadowleaver, that's possibly the wisest post of the thread.
It brought back to my memory a dilemma at the school once. A first year teacher from a mostly rural state had come to our D.C. suburban school to teach English. She had been an award winning student teacher, but of course, when you're student teaching you have the constant crutch of the master teacher at your side. Within days of the start of the school year, we realized she was not just struggling (as many first year teachers do), but was drowning. So we called in reinforcements and spent a great deal of time assisting her with teaching strategies, but she just couldn't master them. Even if one of our administrator's worked out a lesson plan with her and demonstrated the lesson plan during the first period class, the first year teacher would collapse during the second period. Next we called in a dsitrict specialist in English, and she spent a great deal of time with the first year teacher. Improvement was nil. Finally, we had to fire the first year teacher. Certainly firing a young teacher with a mission in her soul was not a very Buddhist thing to do. BUT THE ALTERNATIVE -- MAKING 14O STUDENTS SUFFER THROUGH A YEAR OF INADEQUATE INSTRUCTION IN WHAT IS, PERHAPS, THE MOST IMPORTANT CORE SUBJECT -- NOT A VERY BUDDHIST THING TO DO EITHER.
You dont have to attend every arguement you're invited to.
Very insightful, @shadowleaver; currently in dispute with someone who previously made an awful lot of things very difficult for both me and my H. We contemplate each move, because each move must be fuelled by correct motivation, not a sense of revenge or righteous indignation....
No. In fact, Buddhism asks that we confront the truth.