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.
Is confrontation ever acceptable?
Zayl
Veteran
I'm at a loss for this. I am just wondering, if it is ever acceptable to stand your ground when challenged on something? say, someone insults your very core beliefs or your family, or maybe threaten to harm you or those you care about. In Buddhism is it ever acceptable to just say "No." and be willing to back it up? Pacifism is great and all, and I do my best to try and follow that path. But sometimes it feels like you get backed into a corner, with your only two choices being to bend over and take it, or to stand firm and fight for what you believe. And I am of the type to never, ever back down and accept an injustice. This has led to tons of friction between me and people who I thought were friends but, I have my principals. if I betrayed myself in this regard, what would I be?
Long story short, does being Buddhist mean you have to back down a lot? to betray that which you stand for, in the interest of keeping peace? Or even worse, to not stand for anything at all?
Long story short, does being Buddhist mean you have to back down a lot? to betray that which you stand for, in the interest of keeping peace? Or even worse, to not stand for anything at all?
0
Comments
There will always be times when confrontation is necessary, even for Buddhists.
One would hope to develop the wisdom for picking appropriate battles, and when to back off and give the win to someone else.
No principals. No problem. Ego, things to defend . . . inevitable conflict, obstacles etc. At the present time you have your encrustations, sense of self and preferred protection field. Be as kind, gentle and understanding as you can. In time you will be less defensive . . . and paradoxically but inevitably your understanding and protective 'duties'/karma will change . . .
This from a Master samurai might be helpful:
“The ultimate aim of martial arts is not having to use them”
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/14462.Miyamoto_Musashi
Is your 'honour' based on fear? My honour is based on Love. Nothing stands in my way - but me.
I am a disgrace.
:rant:
I will even lie about not having principals . . . just so you can let off steam . . . consider it a principal Buddhist service . . .
:screwy:
You know it, therefore you perhaps, just maybe, fear being thought fearful?
I on the other hand am a coward. The victory is yours.
Backing down or speaking up is best screened through the Buddhist question of.... what is
ceasing from evil, doing only good & purifying your heart.
or you can ask yourself which is a response of the self & which is of selflessness.
The ego often reduces everything to either a fight or flight option whereas equanimity based on selflessness often allows for a variety of other possibilities.
All phenomena which arises, lives and passes away in a meditation practise is the perfect practise ground for learning how to not bring your ego to a confrontation.
No cut and dry answers here. Just ways of developing the skillfull means to address each new arising situation.
We don’t need to be doormats but we do have patience or tolerance for a paramita to develop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāramitā
The decision to switch from khanti to viriya and sacca (and to express some energetic honesty) depends on panna on wisdom. The wisdom it what sees through the principals and the teachings and appeals directly to the source of them.
There are no absolutes no fixed guidelines; we need to find the heart of the matter, and attain the wisdom behind the rules and the intellectual teachings.
My atrocious spelling is not improved by spell checkers. My mistake . . . yet again . . . no perfection this side of Buddahood . . . So many skills to develop . . .
Of course that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself if you are attacked, but having a difference of opinion usually isn't the same as an attack, except to the ego.
When it comes to such things, if one is to be forced onto either path A or path B. Is there any call to look within yourself, and to choose what is right? even if it may be incorrect, does Buddhism ever call for someone to just go with their own instincts? At times it is impossible to know the ins and outs of every situation, even if you are being called to make a decision before you have examined everything.
That sounds like pretty advanced wisdom and discernment, to me. Are we there yet? idk.
But what if I just said no? where is the harm in that? if I managed to engage in a confrontation with skillful speech, does that still mean I am degrading the other persons view?
Gods above I want to live free, to celebrate love and light as it is. But every day people bring me down, to try and live a life full of things I do NOT want. And I feel guilty by simply saying "No."
If the world has gone mad, then the only sane people left will be regarded as mad. Do you want to give in to the madness, just so the truly crazy will view you as sane? Do you want to sell out? Could you live with yourself?
Occasionally minor compromises may be necessary, to keep the peace. Or thoughtful, skillful words. It's not a license to be rude or confrontational with people.
Insulting core beliefs and threatening to physically harm seem like different issues.
Where is the issue when you're insulted - should this lead to violence?
Where is the issue when you're threatened - should this lead to violence?
Exploring the myriad of paths to violence and seeking one that is justified is surely a slippery slope.
Bend over and take it sounds more like you're winding yourself up - it is an analogy for uninvited anal sex - personally, I find it challenging noting an actual instance when the only 2 choices were to fight or be subjected to rape.
What do you intend on doing about the 'type' of person that you are? Is it possible for you to explore or to change your responses to life? How do the burdens and benefits compare?
I've found, as I have grown up, that I have often in a sense betrayed a facet of who I once may have thought I was.
You may live your life as you choose and each choice carries consequences. There doesn't appear to be one single system - as you live, you are naturally part of systems, interacting constantly - to single out certain traits and concepts and label them a homogenous system is in a way creating a 'demon' to fight.
Why do you need to say 'no' in living the life that you choose? Do others need to see your view for you to engage in life?
'Free' is an interesting concept - interdependence puts a certain spin on freedom - if you seek 'up' then inevitably you will have to face 'down' - take away all the people in the world and your view will still be your view.
I'm not sure why, but when reading it the Zimmerman trial -- which is about to begin -- popped into my head. Where George Zimmerman is legally guilty of killing Trayvon Martin, I don't know. But I feel he does have a moral responsibility for the death because nobody had to die that night. Had he made a different choice, both men would be alive today. And I guess that it's that he had a choice of how to react, which your post reminded me of.
So someone threatens your core beliefs. You can react in several different ways. Do nothing and think that the other person is just spewing hot air. Stand up and express your confidence in your beliefs. Or fight for your beliefs. Etc. Choosing how to react usually provides us with a spectrum of choices. The only choices are rarely submit or win.
I do think there are times it is necessary to stand up and say something. But I do think you can still use caution and compassion and right speech when doing so. I mostly (but not always!) try to remove myself and if I feel a need to stand up for whatever reason I try to do it with a calm mind and heart. I tell myself "Ok, right now you are reacting out of emotion and offfense. Stop, go do something else for 15 minutes, and if it is still important, then think carefully before you choose your words." You know what? 95% of the time in that 15 minutes, I forget what it was that upset me. Sometimes it's not a situation I can leave (such as a family dinner) and I bite my tongue. I never regret doing so. I have regretted many times opening my mouth. The emotion passes and the need to speak up passes along with it, most of the time. If I feel the need to say something, the words come much clearer when I allow the emotion to pass.
But if it's a situation you can't handle without losing your temper then I would get away from the situation. So it's an interesting decision to face up the person or to get away from them. You can do either and still practice dharma.
Along such line of thought, then the only time that standing for your principles and not betraying them may involve some confrontation is when other people are trying to convince you to act in a way that was inconsistent with your principles. In such situation, there is a need to firmly say no and make your position clear and get them to back off. But you should do so in the most non-confrontational way possible. It mainly just requires that you stand your ground and remain committed to act only in accordance with your principles.
A challenge to your beliefs and values doesn't require you to act or believe in a way contrary to them only, hopefully, get you to investigate and examine if your beliefs are indeed correct. Would you want to live according to beliefs that are incorrect anyway? Just as likely is that you would find that your beliefs are well founded and examining them in a new light would only serve to increase the stability of your foundation.
In the long run Buddhism hopes to get us to change our actual instincts deep down so that our natural actions are in accord with the Dharma. When that becomes the case there isn't much need to ask yourself what Buddhism says the correct action is. In the meantime though I think its healthy to do your best to act in accord with the teachings.
Some martial arts practice the principle of side stepping, quite often whilst moving forward. It is amazing how many 'confrontations' are based on the 'need' to step into. Others use the very energy of the confrontation to nullify the attack. On the higher level of training, confrontation is countered at the arising source. The confrontation does not have an object of attack. :wave:
Now I can only run 1/2 mile, bah!
Not responding in contradiction to anyone, just reliving old days.
Okay, so. On topic. No, being a Buddhist does not mean backing down from your beliefs or aspirations. But we do have to remember to show compassion to everyone. If there are those who reacting to situations in a way they may erroneously believe will bring them short term pleasure (e.g., inflicting pain on someone else), maybe we should try to understand that they are reacting in this way because they don't recognize the four noble truths and the liberation from suffering (i.e., short term pleasure) that is possible by following the N8FP.
I suppose perhaps we should stop and think.
Empathy..........Putting yourself in anothers position.
Sympathy........Feeling why another feels as they do.
Tenderness.....Cultivating a non threatening connection to another.
Compassion....Looking for how anothers suffering can be quelled.
Benevolence...Offering whatever you can to quell anothers suffering.
Love...............Acting to allow the cessation of anothers suffering.
Wisdom...........Manifesting that cessation.
http://www.dharmalife.com/issue24/jungle.html
Friend or foe?
http://www.khandro.net/mysterious_naga.htm
Want some honour? Confront yourself.
http://www.wildmind.org/mantras/figures/vajrapani
Om Vajrapani Hum
This can cause trouble where one person is being disinterestedly philosophical while the other may be taking a more personal stance and wish to avoid confrontation with competing views. Same as always, I suppose, confrontation can be good or bad, wise or unwise, etc, depending on context.
When I started out I spent some years testing Buddhist doctrine by confronting people on science and philosophy forums, generally anti-religion forums, and seeing if I could take the heat. Unskillful, perhaps, but a great way of sorting out one's ideas. Confrontation needn't be bad tempered or aggressive but I gave up that method because not everybody takes a philosophical approach and all too often it quickly becomes so.
"In a heart that is one with nature, though the body contends, there is no violence, and in the heart that is not one with nature, though the body be at rest, there is always violence. Be, therefore, like the prow of a boat. It cleaves water, yet it leaves in its wake water unbroken." -- Master Po
http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm29267.html
All my 'greatest wisdom' comes from a 70's TV Series . . . the shame of it . . .
If you are being challenged or confronted…is that not you that is challenging yourself via the opponent. In my mind when something is confronting and your response is to defend or attack in return; it is a signal/clue to examine/investigate yourself via confrontation. Its the looking in the mirror metaphor. To which the confrontation is really with yourself…facing your fears, demons, anxieties, i.e., the wrathful deities.
Confronting is the warrior’s stance, mindfulness is the warrior’s sword and to yield/humbleness is the warrior’s action…thereby the wrathful become the peaceful. To which the skillful response is to yield and examine with mindfulness the offered confrontation/teaching in hopes to gain insight and therefore prevail.
Now there are times/occurrences…when the intention to teach/help/being compassionate and graceful that presenting a wrathful/horrifying appearance is a skillful means. And if the opponent runs off, freezes or fights, then, they are unskillful and not ready…however, if the opponent is a skillful warrior then grace/gift is attained.