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.
Was The Buddha A Doormat ?
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
There's often talk amongst Buddhists along the lines of "Just because I'm a Buddhist this doesn't mean I'm a doormat!"
In other words retaliation of some sort is called for when under attack....
This got me 'thinking' ...If the historical Buddha was around today would he be seen as a doormat ? For example would he retaliate when abused verbally or physically ?
0
Comments
Oh good grief...
I highly doubt the Buddha didn't understand, or misinterpreted his own teachings!
He would retaliate with skillful means and compassion. In the Pali canon there is a story of an angry man abusing the Buddha. The Buddha asked him if when he visited relatives did he take them gifts, when the man affirmed the Buddha asked him that if they refused the gift would he keep them, the man replied yes. The Buddha then told him he did not accept the gift of his anger.
I'm sure someone more familiar with the Nikayas will provide the relevant sutta link.
It is one thing to defend oneself or others. It is another thing entirely to retaliate. There is a big difference between many things that seem similar. Knowing how to differentiate is the key. Is walking away being a doormat? What about staying? When is it ok to ignore someone's obnoxious behavior versus speaking up? It just depends so much on the exact situation and relationships involved.
So often the questions come up as "Someone is being really mean to me/someone at work. Does being a Buddhist mean I can't do anything about it?" And the answer is no. But being a Buddhist means learning how to investigate the situation, which parts each person plays, and determining which action (if any) to take. How to view the situation and any reactions skillfully.
I think his cousin tried to kill him. Maybe you can research that story to see how he acted?
I can't provide the link, but it is a well-known anecdote.
It figures in the Sutra of Forty-Two Sections, but I know it must be also somewhere in the Tipitaka.
I've read it ( @Lonely_Traveller reference) too and I think in Suttas (which I don't generally read)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html
@Jeffrey I'm just thinking out loud... It would seem that the Buddha followed the middle way when dealing with the situation, he practised what he preached
@karasti there's such a thin line between retaliation and just defending oneself that through ignorance it is often crossed... I see your point...
@Lonely_Traveller skilful means can be likened to a sliding scale, what I might see has a skilful non harmful approach (being generous with my acceptance of the given situation), another might not, they might view this approach a being a doormat ...And I might view their approach as being somewhat heavy handed
retaliation is usually about one-upping someone though. To react with an intention of bettering them in words or beating them in confrontation. Defense only goes so far (in my mind)as allowing you to exit an unsafe situation or protect yourself from an attack. Not to turn around and be the aggressor yourself. The point as a Buddhist is to be skillful in knowing which choice is the right one for the situation. Not to just take abuse because you have a skewed belief that doing otherwise is bad. There are many ways to disarm someone (whether they are carrying a weapon or just words) without causing them harm in return.
I was doing some work recently for a very pushy guy. I've been very busy and I had let him know when he asked about me doing some larger projects for him. When I had finished up my current job for him he wanted to add something smaller but about an extra day of work. I really didn't have the time to do it as an addition to this project and I told him so. He insisted several times and several times I told him I really didn't want to do it as I would need to work on Memorial day in order to fit it in. I was able to stand firm on doing it now and was able to wrap up this project and get payment but reached a compromise that I could come back in a few weeks when my backlog had been cleared up.
I didn't need to get aggressive and was able to still hear his side while being able to stand up for my own needs. So my feeling is that by better knowing yourself and what are your own needs are you are able to compromise and be understanding without being a doormat or feeling the need to get hostile or hard.
Also I listened to a podcast by Tara Brach today on this very topic, the one from 8/26/2009 called Genuine acceptance, I believe.
For a person who has realised non self, the term doormat doesn't apply. The Buddha would have no reason to stand up for "himself". An apt story would be the zen master who was wrongly accused of fathering a child. His reply, "Is that so?" would seem strange to us thinking why he doesn't he defend himself. A liberated person has nothing to defend and is free from such type of dukkha.
Google Honeyball Sutta on how he handled someone wanting a debate.
@Shoshin
The word retaliation has a far too loaded meaning to consider it as Buddhist action.
The practitioner tries to respond only when it's appropriate and not respond when it is not appropriate.
This means being free enough from our own conditioned proclivities/identity ego/ selfish self, to do something when it's called for, just as other times doing nothing when that is called for.
Being a doormat or being adversarial according to one's nature are good examples of someone being enslaved by their own conditioned programing.
There's that story about a child running towards the snake, the adult had to push the child out the way at the last minute.
The adult could if been angry at the child or could of maintained inner peace. Either way she still needed to push the child.
What if....
Bleah.
The whole question may be misconceived. Somehow.
Eh . . . a person of the Buddha's psychological stature would not experience a dilemma like 'should I stick up for myself?'
My guess is the Buddha wouldn't conceive of the situation where there is anything TO defend.
I relate to that last part as a nurse, in having to cope with erm unruly patients and family members. I've lost count of being approached by either and having my hair badly messed up by being blasted with anger, threats, aggression and that grief that comes across as anger.
I've watched nurses get really defensive, and it blows up in their face.
I imagine the Buddha would smooth his snails back down, clear his throat, and then respond to the angry person's actual needs, completely ignoring the aggression and threats. And if the latter were very much intended, the Buddha would get up and move out of the way.
When I've just stood there (hair blowing backward) and listened to the person raging and snarling, inevitably they can't maintain their anger without me helping them out. There is nothing to defend. And I don't duck my head and beg and promise and get all submissive either. There is nothing to defend by going that route either.
True, at times words can be quite loaded...especially mine
(Be it unintentional)
Perhaps appropriate response would be a better term ie, "How would the Buddha have 'responded' ?... 'React' (via habitual habit patterns) or 'act' skilfully (where ones practice kicks in) ?
I think the practice of patience is very important when it comes to dealing with many situations.... it's the buffer zone between skilful and unskilful means... How often have we seen someone fly off the handle only to regret it later or perhaps it's a trait we ourselves are also accustomed to....
I guess by assessing the situation at hand (this is where patience comes in handy) one has a better chance of defusing any potential fiery confrontation...(and perhaps this defusing approach might come in the form of pseudo doormatting )
You are so together, @Hamsaka. And quite humorous in the process. Love it. Some people (erm, like me) can be very submissive and easily intimidated -- But, I have my moments. Every now and then I can disarm with humor. The Buddha was very together and very talented to start with, not to mention being a prince with an extra cushion of protection that way. He did an amazing thing, but went through the process of making his own mistakes as a young man and in that sense didn't take any short cuts. I only hope this make some sense.
It's OK @silver ... be as submissive as you like: Bow and scrape and ooze whatever you imagine compassion to be. Or be as aggressive as you like: Kick ass and take names and stick up for The One True Dharma or whatever ....
None of that matters much as long as there is a practice and it gets practiced. Practice has wonderful and sneaky ways of straightening things out. Once that dime starts to drop, there won't be so much fidgeting about "submissive" or "aggressive."
I would suggest The Buddha was master of the option. In such a situation the ability to allow emotive forces to dissipate that @Hamsaka describes is usually more skilful.
I would further suggest that the passive condition that @silver mentions is ironed out in practice and time as @genkaku mentions.
Anger, I was furious yesterday, is a hindrance, failing, impediment. It is an unskillful or imperfect response to fear/stress/Dukkha. Fluffy bunny doormat dharma is equally no part of the Middling Way, the averaging out of our sharp burrs or blunt edges ...
It figures in the Sutra of Forty-Two Sections, but I know it must be also somewhere in the Tipitaka.
I think you mean this one.
(I see @karasti has already supplied. never mind, its confirmation. As Mod, I refuse to be upstaged. That would be acting like a doormat...
)
An interesting and insightful set of responses.
Yes, his cousin did try to kill him. Devadatta, through his own ambition and jelousy, became the Buddha's self-declared enemy. Yet, ultimately, the Buddha declare that Devadatta was in fact was a "good friend" in that he had enabled the Buddha to prove the correctness of his teachings. He predicted that even Devadatta would become a Buddha in a future lifetime.
No, the Buddha was definitely not a doormat.
Cheers!
Was that the one where his cousin shot the goose or bird of some sort?
@genkaku -- Kicking ass and taking names sounds like a nice change of pace.
It would seem that there is a strong aversion towards the poor (and might I say very useful) doormat ? I wonder would one feel the same about being called a tea towel or mop ?
No, there isn't. There's an 'aversion' to being called, or behaving LIKE a doormat.
Well, if you're the drip that dries up at the slightest provocation... if the cap fits....
What is the purpose of the doormat ? Does it serve a beneficial purpose ?
Well yeah, I think so...doormats have been known to trip up unwary jerks...er peeps.
One direct attempt was by rolling a boulder off a cliff in a failed attempt to crush the Buddha. His aim was just a little off...
I can see it now: Are you doormats or are you...opps, wrong movie.
"One direct attempt..." sorry, didn't mean to shout.
So there's an unhealthy attachment to the word/term?
Indeed.
We all have tendencies, strengths and weaknesses. The path is not about unskilfull display of our tendencies, whether that is bullying, passivity, gibbering, excessive time wasting, dogma drumming, cushion fetishism etc ...
In this sense we gain experience from the skilled and try and redirect the unskilled both in ourselves and others. Why? I guess we are on a path ...
Being objective about ourselves can be extremely difficult, maybe even potentially dangerous to our sense of self and identity. However that is the Path.
I've come to a point in my life where I don't take people's angry outbursts personally any more.
I always try to picture the Buddha in the gift anecdote and that tends to give me the nanosecond I need not to react.
I realize that when somebody lashes out, it's not that anything or anyone pushed any buttons in them, but rather that this people go about carrying anger in themselves or are bottled up in anger, and outside circumstances are mere excuses for them to give vent to it and disrupt our equanimity by involving us in the process.
It has nothing to do with us, and all to do with them.
So I choose to leave the gift with them.
Tee Hee. I have outbursts that are personal. Not good.
You are right, do we equally not take personally, outbursts of others lust, ignorance, sexism, penchant for grammatical rectitude (mentioning no moderators) etc.
Indeed taking it further do we not take our personality/karma personally?
Being impersonal or objective is one of the benefits of regular and sustained practice ...
The consensus it would seem is that being seen as or acting like a Doormat is not conducive to ones practice…
So I humbly accept de-feet
Now I'll admit to everything else . . . but speak for yourself about having tendencies. I do not have or allow . . . tendencies.
Anyway, it sounds like a vitamin deficiency that rarely happens in the developed world. Tendencies. Yuck. You know how if you say a word over and over long enough that it starts to sound like a disease . . . ? Maybe not
tendencies is normal, right? I would say everybody has tendencies. I don't understand.
I think it was a joke @Jeffrey
oh
I have a hard time knowing people are serious or joking
sometimes.
No problem...So do I
I'm sorry but I am not sure if you are serious or joking
I'm serious @Jeffrey..At times when reading some posts, I'm not sure if some comments are an attempt at sarcastic wit, a joke, or serious...
Mind you I must admit I do tend to take most things with a pinch of salt 'not too seriously" (well apart from those comments where the poster is obviously suffering and pouring out their heart)...
tendency = an inclination towards a particular characteristic or type of behaviour.
If we have a proclivity to be a submissive doormat or a princely goat (aka pre Buddhas) we exhibit behavour and characteristics of ignorance.
Part of the eightfold path is engaging increasingly with behavour centered around enlightened behavour rather than personal accumulated karmic affectations.
@lobster. we are all submissive doormats to the senses
(well for the most part)
I was teasing Lobster, Jeffrey
that was a bit out there, I must admit.
This is where the 'genius' of emoticons come in. A good 'barf' smiley indicates sarcasm, for instance, or a 'wink' emoticon says 'don't take this too seriously'.
I tend to use scare quotes (it took everything I had not to put scare quotes around scare quotes) and a LOT of parentheses (in case you haven't noticed), ellipses . . . . I think, or hope rather, that it paces what I'm writing, makes it seem like direct language. All these nifty things, however they horrify our grammar nazis and English majors, work in place of the nonverbals we miss out on, not seeing each other face to face.
That's so true...I guess there will always be communication problems in cyber space, plus one can never tell what kind of mood a reader of the comment might bring with them to the thread....
I put my life on the line every time I start a thread
New member here. How's everyone?
This has always been a problem for me. Being a timid guy people often make fun of me, i am more or less an easy target. On the one hand I wanna lash out to end it, but Buddha says otherwise. It is very conflicting. I know buddha is right, but i also know i am right (in the sense that if unless bullies are confronted they won't back down).
So for me there's no easy solution.
@genie, what environment is this bullying taking place ? Also you might want to check out this "Thread" & this "one"