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.
The Art of Non-Argument
One thing I'm really trying to learn right now is how not to argue. In other words, how to be sufficiently mindful and self-controlled that no one can lure me into a fight.
These internet boards are great practice for this, because it's so easy to read a post, get agitated, and fire off an "attack". I've done this countless times over the years, but rarely have I derived any real satisfaction from it. Even when I've "won the argument," my opponent never changed his thinking; indeed, on many occasions he "retaliated" by entrenching himself further into his belief, almost as if to spite me.
Eventually I realized that winning an argument is seldom a true victory. All you do is embarrass someone, or create ill-will, or drive them further away from what you're trying to convince them of.
Buddhism provides an opportunity to rise to a higher consciousness, where we're not quite so subject to ego that we absolutely have to win. Instead, we can shift toward a kind of "non-antagonistic dialogue," paying more attention to crafting our words in a less-aggressive, more friendly and harmonious way.
I'm far from having perfected this technique (I only recently started practicing it in earnest), but I'm making gradual progress.
Is this kind of non-antagonistic communication something you practice as well? Would you care to share your experiences about it? I feel it's an important ingredient of the Right Mindfulness and Right Speech spokes of the Noble Eightfold Path.
These internet boards are great practice for this, because it's so easy to read a post, get agitated, and fire off an "attack". I've done this countless times over the years, but rarely have I derived any real satisfaction from it. Even when I've "won the argument," my opponent never changed his thinking; indeed, on many occasions he "retaliated" by entrenching himself further into his belief, almost as if to spite me.
Eventually I realized that winning an argument is seldom a true victory. All you do is embarrass someone, or create ill-will, or drive them further away from what you're trying to convince them of.
Buddhism provides an opportunity to rise to a higher consciousness, where we're not quite so subject to ego that we absolutely have to win. Instead, we can shift toward a kind of "non-antagonistic dialogue," paying more attention to crafting our words in a less-aggressive, more friendly and harmonious way.
I'm far from having perfected this technique (I only recently started practicing it in earnest), but I'm making gradual progress.
Is this kind of non-antagonistic communication something you practice as well? Would you care to share your experiences about it? I feel it's an important ingredient of the Right Mindfulness and Right Speech spokes of the Noble Eightfold Path.
0
Comments
I think in general, avoidance of conflict is a sound policy. A wise person does not seek out conflict: that's a non-peaceful thing to do. As the Buddha said:
More productive than conflict is reaching an understanding with the other person, a friendly and mutually respectful dialogue. We're all interdependent beings, we're all working together. The ideal (it seems to me) is to work together harmoniously as much as we can.
If, however, through no fault of our own we find ourselves in the midst of conflict (which, as you say, is sometimes unavoidable), then I totally agree with you: the thing to do is deal with it mindfully. Face it without fear, and work through it in an enlightened way.
And that's exactly what I'm talking about: finding a way to move through conflict or disagreement without getting attached to emotions or ideas. Learning to navigate gracefully through anger, indignation, whatever emotion may pop up (on either side), and just trying to maintain equanimity and self-control through the response process.
It seems to me "striving for truth" is really what we're doing, so we need to be mindful not to lose sight of that.
It becomes apparent how useful the technique of remaining silent really is; the Buddha had the right idea.
When you disagree with something someone has said, in any particular area, this does not necessarily mean that you have to argue with them about it. Furthermore, it doesn’t mean that you cannot state an alternate opinion in a gentle and civilized manner. If we are all going to pretend that we agree, or simply walk away when we cannot, what is the use of even showing up in order to help each other or to grow, because of being presented with an alternate point of view, or simply a new way of looking at things?
We all have an idea of what it might be like if everything was ideal, but lets face it life isn’t ideal.
Isn’t that the whole point that is brought to us through the story of Buddha’s early life? How his father tried to protect him from everything, disagreeable, much as we do our own children, and that it just wasn’t possible.
Buddha got hit up beside the head by life, blindsided, by sickness, old age and death.
We are doing this to our own self, when we expect everything to go smoothly, or resist the fact that it cannot. We survive by adapting…to every situation.
In this same way, pretending that there will not be difficulties in speaking with others, or simply writing them off if there are, seems unrealistic to the extreme.
Carried to excess, it could even be cruel. How would you like to be the person lacking in some social skill that everyone turned their back on, and walked away from? Abandonment is actually one of our biggest fears in this life. Many, many mentally ill persons have suffered this social stigma of being different and disallowed from belonging.
Or even, what about the other side of this, altogether?
How would you like to be the one who was placated by someone? A statement like “What you have said is very interesting,” becomes suspect with over use. I would far rather someone honestly disagreed with me, than to placate me. There is an element of respect in an honest disagreement.
Everything we do has multiple implications. Nothing is so easy as we might wish. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
You have hit upon what for me are the key points in the matter: ego and letting go. Those who are ego-bound will stay in the argument, and keep "fighting" to make their point. I have seen this in the recurring "rebirth" arguments in this forum, both sides continuing to hammer each other over the head, trying to make their point. In the process, one side becomes defensive and the other frustrated; and before long harsh words are being spoken, and you have lost the point of Buddhism entirely: you're just another ignorant soul in the clutches of samsara.
Such communication is ego-bound, it's all about "being right" or "winning the argument" or "proving the other person wrong" or "saving face." But the Buddha explicitly warned us against this kind of thinking, many times. If we are practicing this kind of ego-bound communication, it means we have not yet learned the Buddha's lesson.
Very few people I've met are able to carry on a dispassionate dialogue, to resist being lured into "debate" on one side or the other. I myself struggle with it daily, especially with things like political discussions, which by their nature are volatile. Emails, in particular, are a pitfall for me.
But that is the path we have been called to follow: a path of equanimity, non-attachment to passion/emotion/ego. Mindful dialogue is the way. In my experience, we can only hope to practice this successfully if we are meditating and reading the Dharma daily; otherwise, we just get sucked back into the common mindset, along with everyone else who is blindly blundering their way through life, unaware that there is a better way.
That is definitely one to remember.
What you have said is very interesting.
I am not sure where you got the idea I'm advocating "abandonment," though. On the contrary, I'm talking about maintaining mindfulness in the midst of conflict. I'm talking about practicing enlightened communication, not "walking away."
I'm talking about conscious conversation; mindfulness in the midst of discussion; equanimous dialogue; maintaining objectivity; cultivating right speech.
Does that clarify what I'm talking about?
Precisely! Now you're getting it.
Z: I am not sure where you got the idea I'm advocating "abandonment," though.”
S9: Perhaps it is when you say things like, “Very few people I've met are able to carry on a dispassionate dialogue, to resist being lured into "debate" on one side or the other,” that I find you becoming very easy to misunderstand, even though I fully realize that your message is well-intended. : ^ )
It makes me think that you believe that we should not be enthusiastic about your ideas of the truth, or that we should not jump right into it and study where we are differing, in detail, or even that perhaps continuing in a debate if agreement isn’t reached rather quickly is a form of ignorance. Do you actually think that dispassion is synonymous with Buddhism?
I am sorry if I am way off the mark here…so help me out. : ^ )
I believe that it is the author’s responsibility to make him/herself understood. Placing blame on the reader of our words for misunderstanding, which you do with me quite frequently, incidentally, does not pad the way towards a gentle and open dialogue, IM O. : ^ (
I mean no offense. I just believe that there are multiple points of view, and that Truth is not just one of those points of view.
Peace is a skill,
S9
The key to not arguing for me is to have a deep respect for the suffering of others... so that I do not try to jump in and 'save them' from patterns in their words that seem to me to be causing the complaints in their next sentence. Better to sit in compassion for all of them, including their mind, tears, beliefs, subjective projections, giggles et all.
With warmth,
Matt
I sincerely apologize if I have come across as placing blame upon you: I assure you that was unintentional!
On the contrary, I find your insights to be exceptionally wise and well worth reading, and I derive much benefit from your words.
Perhaps it is for this reason--my holding your insights in such high regard--that I may occasionally come across as something other than entirely respectful (which I did not realize was the case). For the ego has many subtle devices, and I have not spied them all out yet: my behavior must contain many "hidden" samsaras that I have not yet awakened to.
Thank you for pointing this out, my friend! It's a gift to have a "blind spot" pointed out: it shows me yet another place where I need to work on myself.
To answer your question: I'm not sure I'd say that dispassion is "synonymous" with Buddhism, but it's definitely close. Dispassion and equanimity are closely related, and IMHO, equanimity is as quintessentially Buddhist a principle as any other.
That's not to say we can't debate dispassionately (that is, in the true sense of "debate"). One might argue that the dialectical discourses of Buddha (and his close Greek contemporary Socrates) were just such "debates." All I am saying is we should engage consciously with one another, and not lose our vigil over emotion.
Much metta,
zendo
AM: If we let that enthusiasm grow into aggression, where we try to convince or demand or subdue, then we have wound the string too tight and 'broke' the moment.
S9: One ‘rule of thumb’ in a philosophical debate is to stir clear of ad hominem replies. (Not to go into attacking the holder of the ideas, with statements like “Only a smuk would think that,” but rather to work at disproving or even correcting the ideas themselves.)
Many people attach themselves so seamlessly with their ideas (Identify with them and even as them) that they see a disagreement with their ideas as a personal attack against their person. This would certainly be time to rethink, and to put a little distance between your thoughts and your person.
AM: If we are perceiving the other person as being aggressive, if we have no demands of them, their aggression is just causing them suffering.
S9: Of course, deciding that someone else is being aggressive (placing blame) is not always that simple (although sometimes, I agree, you would have to be blind not to see aggression in someone else’s behavior), sometimes we are projecting our own aggression, or even cloaking our own less noticeable aggression with subtle choices of words, and not noticing where or how we are involved in the whole process.
For this reason, we must keep an eagle eye on our own selves, (a first priority) and take at least some responsibility within the dynamics of any relationship in process. Some people are very good at pushing other people’s buttons and feel both powerful and superior in doing this. Ego is a “Rascally Rabbit.” (Old/timely Cartoon allusion)
AM: The key to not arguing for me is to have a deep respect for the suffering of others... so that I do not try to jump in and 'save them' from patterns in their words that seem to me to be causing the complaints in their next sentence. Better to sit in compassion for all of them, including their mind, tears, beliefs, subjective projections, giggles et all.
S9: I saw something in an article just recently that made a lot of sense to me.
A Buddhist woman admitted to sometimes saying things that were hurtful and even cruel, under the guise of being both clever and witty. When she examined this behavior, she realized that she strongly needed the admiration from others, which speaking it this fashion could often muster, of course not from the recipient of such words, but in those close by.
She also realized that giving up such ways of acting was very difficult, because not saying such things, for the most part, went unnoticed and didn’t seem to have the same payback of both attention and admiration built in.
It was only when she began to notice how really bad such behavior made HER feel (hungry ghost) that she sought out a better way.
“How much of my behavior,” I asked myself after reading this article, “is a misplaced request for love?”
Warm Regards,
S9
Exactly. This happens all the time on these web forums, and I myself have fallen into it again and again. It's a fertile area for practice, because it's so easy to slip into this error, yet it's such a vital lesson for us to learn: equanimity, the practice of non-attachment.
For me, the key to maintaining equanimity is to meditate as often as possible: it's amazing how much meditation grounds you in the Buddha nature, which is like a tower of strength, impervious to the "slings and arrows" ego is subject to.
Very true--and again, it's helpful to have well-meaning friends who can point out when we are doing this, because until we awaken to it, we can be totally blind to the fact that it's going on. Seeing what we're doing requires honesty and humility, two traits without which real growth isn't possible.
Thanks for sharing this story S9: it's very helpful to me, because as a comedy writer I have done this same thing myself, and pondered whether it was wholesome or not.
I really enjoyed your breakdown and additional ideas! I have a few notes to ad to your song.
S9: Of course, deciding that someone else is being aggressive (placing blame) is not always that simple.
It is both incredibly simple and terribly complex. When I said 'if we have no demands of them' could also be said 'no attachments in the moment', pointing more at the ideal than the 'we should be this way'. The complexity seems to me to arise from our attachments. Ad hominem replies perhaps being the most attached (their idea so ensnared in our mind that we project solid meaning onto the speaker), with ideas such as "they're wrong" being the same energy (but a collapsing of our own spaciousness, wherein all forms have subjective relationships with their world) in a slightly less attached manner?
S9:She also realized that giving up such ways of acting was very difficult, because not saying such things, for the most part, went unnoticed and didn’t seem to have the same payback of both attention and admiration built in. It was only when she began to notice how really bad such behavior made HER feel (hungry ghost) that she sought out a better way.
I love this story, and do remember picking fights in order to be heard! I love to be witty, and I certainly agree that giving attention and care to the world we interact with is of a much higher priority, but often I feel there is room for both.
In my experience, if both people get and enjoy the joke, then it is a skillful joke. If the joke pays the price of another's feelings or awareness (such as a joke that propagates stereotypical thinking)... not quite so skillful. I have the most fun with irony, as it can be a good teacher, a fun place to delve and often quite hilarious!
s9: “How much of my behavior,” I asked myself after reading this article, “is a misplaced request for love?”
I would venture to say, all of it.
With warmth,
Matt
The other day while laughing with a friend, I said, “I don’t mind when people disagree with me. But I just hate it, when they make a good case for it.”
There is a bit of truth in that humor, for all of us…don’t you think? ; ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9
I think a good deal comes back to intention. We must put our intentions under an electron microscope in order to see the dirty little details that worm their way into our behavior. The ego-self is ingenious in its costuming.
AM: It is both incredibly simple and terribly complex. When I said 'if we have no demands of them' could also be said 'no attachments in the moment', pointing more at the ideal than the 'we should be this way'.
S9: Yes, this comes back to intention, don’t you think?
Very often we start out with good intentions, but something or someone comes along and pushes one of our many ‘instantly reactive’ buttons. Many of these buttons remain undiscovered, even by us, until some karmic teacher comes by and does us the service of pushing it. BEEP/BEEP/BEEP. And we find ourselves yelling, “Knock it off.” ; ^ )
If we could just step back and understand the dynamics of our own spiritual path, perhaps we would be grateful. But, alas, how often does that happen, unless of course through wisdom we set it up (make a rule about it) and in so doing cut off our more natural reactivity to such events/hurts.
AM: Their idea so ensnared in our mind that we project solid meaning onto the speaker.
S9: I think if we examine our own ideas closely, we will come to see that we use many of these ideas as an edifice of protection in one way or another. This would include our own self-image. So emotionally we may feel under attack even by a wise and solid debate that in someway undermines our concepts, and ‘image making.’ We may even feel (however irrationally) that we are under attack, and react in kind.
One of the things that I do to avoid this pitfall is to see ideas as toys. This is not to say that you do not take anything seriously. But I think things over in my own sweet time before I actually make any drastic changes in my thinking. In this way, no one can come along a kick the ground from under my feet putting me into freefall. I gain fuel for further thought and at the same time I need not fear a discussion. This protects me from my own emotionalism and gives me space. Taking one step back from what is going on gives you protection from your own irrational reactions.
Quote: (Can’t remember who said this.) “In protecting myself, I am protecting others,” (from my reactions.)
RE: S9: “How much of my behavior,” I asked myself after reading this article, “is a misplaced request for love?”
AM: I would venture to say, all of it.
S9: I wonder if I could get you to elucidate a bit further on this interesting reply? It is my feeling that, not only are you correct, but there is much wisdom behind your coming to this conclusion.
Lastly, I would just like to mention that I agree that humor correctly applied can be very useful to both our path, and to our wisdom, as in the Holy Clowns and Crazy Wisdom (a book also of this name, which you might enjoy by Wes “Scoop” Nisker.”
Warm Regards,
S9
I've found that most people cannot participate in a debate a remain cool headed.
I used to have long debates about the middle east, life, israel palestinian, real estate market, the many conspiracy theories, anything... with some friends over a few pints of beer.
I would enjoy this very much, people getting excited, long discussions it was great fun to me.
I love when we disagree over something, to me, it's just an opportunity to figure out was is the proposition that is the most likely to be right.
If 2 people disagree over something, you are either both wrong, both right, or one is wrong and the other right. So let's figure this out and it should be great fun.
It was the most fun i would have that week.
Until my wife convinced me to stop doing this.
She made me realize that people were getting offended, sadden, stressed out and it wasn't fun for them.
And that this would make me appear very obnoxious and insensitive..
(I was totally blind to this, i would only think they're pride was a little bruised but they should get it over with by the next day, all good fun)
They could not debate and argue for the fun of it, they felt so connected to their ideas and concepts that they would personally feel attacked when people challenge their ideas.
People take their ideas very seriously, and they take themselves very seriously.
So until i figure out a way to have a debate with someone without having them getting hurt in the process, I guess my debate nights are over...
so far, i don't think there is a way to get to the details of things.
Only superficial conversations are possible.
I believe it's about a smooth, harmonious flow of dialogue, which can be learned and practiced, like an art: the noble art of communication, or Right Speech. It's an art anyone can learn, and it starts within us, at the level of thought.
By continuous meditation, we learn to harness our mind. Once in control of our mind, we gain control of our speech (for speech, like action, flows from thought); and from this place of greater self-mastery, the words that flow from our mouths will be more wisely-chosen; our responses will be governed, not by passion or impulse, but rather by wisdom.
Thanks for sharing your story, patbb! I appreciate your ability to "wake up" and acknowledge your error, as well as your sincere intention to improve.
I think this is a great phrasing for this. What a great service we perform for each other by pushing buttons! I agree that intent has a lot to do with what occurs in the moment we discuss ideas. If it is mutual that communing directly is the highest goal, then there is perhaps less self-centric intent. Really though, any intent is unnecessary at a certain point of the journey... looking perhaps at "intent" vs "fluid relating" (which it could be said that intent is a collapsing of fluid relating... as it implies pre-empting the moment with a previous moment of desire?)
For instance, intending on being compassionate requires a focus on the future that prevents compassion in the moment, which is where reality actually is? It would really depend on the feasibility of this within the practitioner's journey... as sometimes I feel it the best case to be implanting compassion in the next moment.
s9:I think if we examine our own ideas closely, we will come to see that we use many of these ideas as an edifice of protection in one way or another. This would include our own self-image. So emotionally we may feel under attack even by a wise and solid debate that in someway undermines our concepts, and ‘image making.’ We may even feel (however irrationally) that we are under attack, and react in kind.
Oh! How amazing and fluid exchanges would be if everyone could see the light and wisdom you present here. I agree totally. I can understand what you're saying by toys... it sounds like a finger pointing at the 'impermanence' moon.
AM: I would venture to say, all of it.
S9: I wonder if I could get you to elucidate a bit further on this interesting reply? It is my feeling that, not only are you correct, but there is much wisdom behind your coming to this conclusion.
RE: S9: “How much of my behavior,” I asked myself after reading this article, “is a misplaced request for love?”
Certainly! Much of it is wordplay, but it breaks apart like this:
"my behavior" is a self-reference point... it could be said "behavior which I attribute to my-self". So what is this behavior except a confused or unskillful hope to rejoin the harmony of life? (which simply occurs naturally in the absence of any solid-self viewing) For me, the experience of that harmony is love, though many poets call it by other words... a connected resonance with the moment and people and the environment.
I think we are instinctually, intrinsically drawn back toward this state of harmony. So, all "my-behaviors" would inherently be a misplaced attempt to fulfill that 'rejoining'. A 'well-placed' attempt would simply be 'rejoining', which I've only seen occur in the absence of any solid sense of self. Even the most violent, tormenting of desires seems to resonate with this longing, and the less solid our own mind, the more apt it seems to be able to pick up on what twists this desire into the misplaced.
With warmth,
Matt
"Do you know, there is every possibility that you're right."
P: I've found that most people cannot participate in a debate and remain cool headed.
S9: Perhaps this is because on average, people need to be in agreement with others in order to feel comfortable, as in “like minded friends.”
So if you are going to introduce something that disagrees with them, it is best if you do it in small doses, like adding spice. Too much spice ruins the dish, or probably any casual social get-to-gather. ; ^ )
Here on this forum, it is possible that we can move a little faster in the direction of truth, and wisdom, esp. if we come to see this as a team effort, or as us against illusion. Than like fighting a flood, or trying to extinguish a fire, it is more of a community effort to overcome a mutual adversary.
This is what is often referred to as “a mind set.” In other words, we come into this particular arena expecting that there will be various opinions about moonlight.
We may even be looking forward to seeing things from a fresh perspective. I personally have found, repeatedly, through-out my life that what I thought I knew, without any doubt, whatsoever, often changes, sometimes drastically given time and more information.
I have a habit of underlining in the books that I am reading, with the understanding that sometime later, I may come back and get the best part of a book by merely reading the underlines. Only then if the underlines merit my doing so, will I go on to reread the book from cover to cover.
I originally undelined my books in ink, but wisdom has taught me to use a pencil which lends itself better to being erased as I change. ; ^ )
Anyway, I reread some underlines in one of my Zen books not too long ago. I hadn’t read this particular book for some 20 years. The underlines were quite good, and so I went on to read the whole book. What surprised me, however, was that many of the best parts of the book had not been underlined by me. I also noticed after thinking why this might be the case that the parts I had missed were far more subtle than my original underlines, my own subtle had changed from my previous self. I had grown not so much in accumulated wisdom, but rather in my SUBTLETY of understanding. My path had deepened.
What we run into on a forum such as this, IMO, is people at different depths all along this same path. So it is best to stay open hearted to what people are saying. What doesn’t fit us now, may very well be a very good fit later, when we need it.
Warm Regards,
S9
.
Re #1.....We can all get our buttons pushed at some time or another in online forums. Its easy to misinterpret the written words and intentions of others sometimes.
Its all good practice with regard to our own reactions ...and best not to take everything too seriously.
Kind wishes to all,
Dazzle
.
People in the general population, are simply too attached to their ideas. They are their ideas.
No doubt it is almost impossible to keep from hurting someones feelings, especially if they have learned to wear their feelings on their sleeve. You don’t even have to open your mouth sometimes to do it.
You could have a pained look on your face, and if someone is hell-bent on taking everything personal they will see that expression as disapprove of them. What is one to do short of going off and living in the mountains all alone? Than someone, maybe your mother will see this as abandonment.
All we can do in this world is to try our best to be gentle and unruffled when speaking to others, and keep saying things like IMO to smooth a few feathers.
However when you join a forum of any kind, you best know that your feelings have become “public property”, and if you do not protect them by preventing yourself from being overly-sensitive, and taking an attitude like “Live and let live,”well, I can guarentee you that it is going to be a rough ride. : ^ (
I personally do not believe that the only way to be a “Righteous dude” is to be either smarmy, or mute. ; ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
Don't you think that anything can be done skillfully with some training? For instance, if we can keep aggression out of a more friendly discussion, and see it rather as two persons seeking truth together, than it need not degenerate into an argument with fur and feathers flying. ; ^ )
Perhaps we can only do this if we keep an open heart and do not fear losing.
First we must examine and understand, don’t you think, what losing represents within our personal emotional life?
Peace is a skill,
S9
No argument.
This is the Viking Way.
The Buddhist way is more subtle. You try and avoid getting sucked in to argument, but fail, because you are not beyond identification with views. So you cool off, stand back, go "oh" and move on.