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.
Gentle Buddhist
lobster
Crusty Veteran
There is a type of Buddhist:
- Very sensitive, often creative and overly spiritual
- Would not say boo to a goose
- Pained to incapacity by the cruelty of the world
- Attracted to passive, new-age-wonder-fluffy-bunny-dharma
- Fragile to the point of being infantile
- Doormat
- Anxious, fearful, reclusive
- Terrified of being judged
My sister has many of these traits, she is mentally ill.
Some of you may still be lurking here . . .
How do you cope? Have you found ways to cope?
Be gentle guys . . .
6
Comments
Boddhisattvas give 'milk' to those still in the cocoon. This is in Smile at Fear, by Trungpa Rinpoche.
Jump into the bodhicitta blender. This takes a toll and one needs to teach others how to treat you.
Welcoming mat any better? Yes.
I'm lost here, @lobster. Do any of the traits described above represent different types of Buddhists? Do all Buddhists respond to that profile? You want to know if we're one type or all of the above described?
One thing I know: I have a bit (though are not "overly" nor "very" anything) of the first sundry, though in a positive way, since the way it is written makes it sounds rather corny.
Sensitive, yes, but not slushy sentimental.
Creative, yes, and also resourceful, especially to deal with life situations as they present themselves and making the best of the hand I'm dealt with.
Spiritual, yes, but not ascetic nor Bible basher.
You find what I call the "smirk and be meek" type in all religions.
People who think that you have to be soft-voiced and present yourself to the world under the nicest guise possible. I think it was Joseph Goldstein who said "Don't wallpaper your anger with compassion." The thought springs to mind when I meet these people. The ones that act like doormat but could stab you in the back (or in the front, actually) anytime.
To some people, it is cultural, as in Asia, where people are taught to act politely and mildly and bow and smile and all that. To others, it's the way to cover up or repress an aggresive nature.
But I insist, in my experience people like this appear in every religion.
The type of Buddhist described is like the person I used to be. I didn't wallpaper my anger with compassion though. I wallpapered my compassion with anger. I would act tough because that's just how some neighborhoods are but secretly would hope the best for everyone. When I was even younger I would fantasize about coming to my bullys rescue.
That's just as bad though.
I think the point is to just naturally be. That way I can act with consideration instead of reacting.
Still taming my tiger but it usually behaves.
@dharmamom, yeah I identify with the first line of the first paragraph on Lobster's post.
I did not understand this.
Could be true even of a successful concert pianist. They might also be lost in a cold cruel world. Being incapacitated is just a prison of a lot of societies trips telling you there is something wrong with you. Remember pu' the uncarved block
I was just thinking of Hamsaka...
I got quite a bit of those attributes. I am more prone to sadness than anger. I am not a fighter. My simple reaction to things and people I can't handle is staying away from them. That maks life a bit easier
Sometime I do wish I am a bit more skillful to tackle the issues which are out of my confort zone.
Fe de errata: My quotation above about is by Larry Rosenberg.
His exact words were: "Don't wallpaper anger, resentment, disappointment with metta."
Loving-kindness, not compassion.
Thanks guys,
I am hopefully not judging people. I am suggesting that people with an unbalanced and therefore not middle way perspective are drawn to particular aspects of dharma. For example 'dietary dharma' or 'thou shalt be a big softee'.
We may find a more compassionate but wrathful teacher is not gentle but effective with more entrenched dukkha. However she is too severe and direct for our unbalanced fragility. We might avoid sangha meets because we are too plebeian, ugly, non conformist etc or [insert reason] . . .
We are on a path that does not require us to be drug free, sane, integrated, social creatures etc but these qualities if available are grounding and skilful.
This is where integrity comes in. Know thyself. Be honest about what is a real quality and what a hang up or weakness.
I shall now go talk to my imaginary three eyed friend . . . Mr Cushion . . . [hangs head in shame] . . .
Well, by your phrase you mean be extremely gentle or shy, right?
Sorry guys. This is a UK vernacular phrase. It means someone shy to the point of not wishing to disturb anyone, including geese . . . Passive to the point of almost invisibility . . .
Understood, thanks for clarifying that.
Passive Buddhists? Softy Buddhists? Shy Buddhists?
(http://theindiespiritualist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1-noah-levine.jpg
The discussion raises some important points.
The Buddha was born into the Ksatriya or ' Warrior ' caste.
He himself was taught to use the bow, and to fence, and he was taught the tactics of war.
He of course renounced that part of his heritage and embraced a life of ahimsa..harmlessness.
But in later life after he Attained he said that his followers had to be spiritual Ksatriyas..spiritual warriors. Waging war on fear anger and greed.
Mettanando.
"Warriors, warriors we call ourselves. We fight for splendid virtue, for high endeavour, for sublime wisdom, therefore we call ourselves warriors."
(Anguttara Nikâya - translation by Alexandra David-Neel)
Alexandra David-Neel comments on this sentence: "If we consider its essential principles, Buddhism is a school of Stoic energy, of unwearying perseverance and singular audacity, the object of which is the training of 'warriors' to attack suffering."
I'm perplexed that some people decide that becoming a Buddhist implies turning into a boring wimp...
IF we are overly aggressive, I am, becoming a boring wimp is a step in the right way towards the middle. IF we are an anxious wimp, then we need to toughen up. Buddhism is not a confirmation of present dukkha, it is a skilful means, a balancing middle way to overcoming dukkha, all of it including physical pain immunity if we are Buddha level skilful . . . which I am not but I have been close enough to physical pain removal to accept its total transcendence . . . just no big deal . . .
We haz plan. Thanks guys.
:wave: .
But the solution seems simple. Can you not teach her to get to where you are at?
That will be a good start to solve most of these things?
Maybe some things that does not need solving?
Maybe the middle one would need releasing once in a while...
I made choices that have lightened my load considerably. But I would have been unable to make them if I did not have the insight into Anatta,Anicca and Dukkah that I have.
One thing though. Does she want to be helped?
/Victor
The lojong says to drive all blames into one (yourself?). It also says of two witnesses take the primary which is again evidently the self. They are provisional slogans that need unpacking in your life. In other words don't take them as contradition of Anatta.
Another one is 'always maintain a cheerful disposition'. So these slogans aren't easy!
@Victor, I would imagine from my own struggles she wants help but any help she thinks "I have already thought of that and it didn't work" or "that wouldn't work" etc
I'm No Wimp
And I'm all to blame!
It's all my fault
And your fault is the same!
Let's not get embroiled in anger
Let's deal with this babe in a manger,
When it's eternally you causing pain
Realise who is to blame?
Poetry,
go at me,
Last post sounds...
Just a finale!
Sounds like a person who is perhaps attracted to buddhism, but has yet to do the "heavy lifting" of a deeper practice that involves facing one's own demons. Everybody has to start somewhere
P.S. I'd never say boo to Hamsaka.
Exactly so. Today we had a family dinner and she is very bad. She should be in hospital, medication or doing yoga at the very least to bring her down from la la land. However . . . she is in some ways a lot better . . .
However this is not about the mentally ill. It is about people who are border line, or unable to admit their dukkha or difficulties stem for a slanted/askew or inappropriate mode of 'being a buddhist'. In other words they are not really even on the path but avoiding it . . . in this particular example by being overly sentimental, unrealistic, dreamy etc . . .
My sister is not a Buddhist and is not on the path and neither do I expect or try to get her on it . . . That is not my business and frankly neither is it anyone else's . . . she was just mentioned in passing . . .
:wave: .
Not sure if this is a dysfunctional coping mechanism or spiritual but I've long thought about the quote from Macbeth
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
It seems to me that the often assumed response is, "Of course you should oppose your troubles". But I'd rather suffer the slings and arrows and having done so while being a Buddhist and gaining an appreciation for emptiness have made myself a target hard to hit. I certainly do shirk from confrontation but there aren't many arrows anymore that find a sensitive spot and cause me a whole lot of suffering.
You asked in the OP how we cope and there it is for me, a third option, don't be a target.
(Excuse me, @person: your quotation is from Hamlet, not Macbeth...)
Whatever, I'm not really that into Samuel Beckett anyway.
You may well find the feeling is reciprocal.....
I guess using humor to deflect some of the sting is another way I cope.
works for me.....
.
Connection too slow to watch your youtube video @lobster but certainly been there done that on the above - too, too many times. And I am also labelled as being mentally ill, although different "experts" put different labels on the precise illness I am meant to suffer from.
I label myself unique and (therefore) precious. I do not expect never to experience a time of immobility again but they have got shorter and more bearable as I have realised that I am powerless over others, that I am responsible only for myself.
Yes, there are times when I simply am not well enough to do the laundry. But it passes.
Thanks for the discussion!
That is a huge responsibility. Most people want to blame the past, genes, circumstances, ignorance, Christians etc. Dharma says we have to recognise where the deer stops and the buck starts on its journey . . .
Being diagnosed, being weak, angry, aggressive, a wer-lobster or indeed anything is part of a continuum.
What is important is what can I do, what will I do? Gentle, aggressive, opinionated, expert Buddhists and people are inevitable. At times we may exhibit these traits.
Mostly we try to be kind to ourselves. Forgiving. It's a start . . . Too gentle and we dissolve . . . :wave: .
While I cannot take on responsibility for the entire world, I should accept some responsibility for some others.
Guess so - but all things are relative. I did feel responsible for the whole world - from climate change and war to making sure my ex had a perfectly ironed shirt each day. So, for me it's quite a relief
Interested in @vinlyn's comment. I don't accept responsibility for others - except to the extent that I allow them to follow their own journey, to learn their own lessons. I struggle with this in the case of my daughter - now 10 - as I would love to be able to fulfil my parental responsibility to her. But I am banned from doing so by court order, have only made myself ill by trying to get this changed and then am not even well enough to answer the phone when my son rings me. Not sure that helps anyone?
Yes, when I am well enough, I do volunteer in a charity shop to raise money for those less fortunate for myself. But I don't see this as a "responsibility" - just as something that I see as worthwhile and that I enjoy doing.
Could such "dissolution" be a necessary condition for the acquisition of wisdom? Looking at @samahita's post on Noble Awareness:
perhaps it is?
Namaste.
Used to say live and let live... Ya know ya did, ya know ya did, ya know ya did
It can be. However the inability to function normally is not necessarily indicative of attainment, virtue or progress, if non volitional.
Do we have the ability to make choices in our behaviour? Being overly passive and labelling this as meritorious fools who? Being angry with the vacuum cleaner but smiling sweetly at ones teacher means the vacuum cleaner is ones master . . .
The issue here is one of discernment and looking at our nature. :wave: .
Thanks @lobster. Right now feels a bit "chicken and egg" - which comes first, discernment or wisdom?
But guess I do see my "non-volitional" dissolution as progress, in that I would not be where I am now had it not happened. I can see no other way that I would not still busily be earning more than anyone needs in the belief that my ex needed the security of lots of money, not realising that he thought I was doing it out of ambition for myself. In my case, the only thing that stopped me leading the life I was leading was getting so ill that even sitting up made me faint. Yes, I loved my job but I didn't love the hours and all my attempts to find a work/life balance in my chosen career had come to nothing.
I usually say "depends on the circumstances" but prefer this way of putting it. Grateful that I have a lifetime to get there and for all those who post here to give pointers :rocker:
if possible try to convince her
whatever has happened in the Past we can not change it by worrying
whatever we think will happen in the Future will not be as we think, so no use in worrying
there was/is/will be no one who can solve All the world problem in the Past/Present/Future
Understood.
We can progress from our break down/my-little-pony/toy/new age dharma.
An enlightened monk once kindly said to me, 'you can not stay here'. This shocked the superficial at his 'unkindness' at not providing 'refuge'. In fact his wisdom and discernment that I could not stay in my present condition was right speech.
So in a sense true refuge is not taking residence in our temporary but apparently real condition. It is allowing the arising of our true home . . .