Is it dhamma to not let the fool know he is being played for a fool?

[greentea]

I was revisiting a couple of threads and I revisited one that upsets me since I first read it, prior to joining this site. It is viewtopic.php?f=56&t=33760
Since I don't want to zombie post, I figured I take my questions here. Now what upsets me greatly isn't the topic, it sucks but it happens. It's rather a few replies. Why is that? Well it's a few select replies that suggest op to refrain from confronting the triangle because of dhamma. Just what? From what op typed the situation is clear that Steve and ely are seeing each other behind Tom's back. Now some of the replies said that maybe that wasn't the whole story, that maybe Tom is okay with it. If the op's story is ignorant then why refrain from confronting it?! Why not ask the party to clarify the relationship? I don't understand how it is ethical from a Buddhist standpoint to not let the fool know he is being played. Especially since op is friends with the guy! You don't want your friend to ask you to clarify something that he perceives wrong? Is it dhamma to not have my friends back too?

[un8-]

It's dhamma to not get into these situations in the first place. The 5 precepts are a preventative measure.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

The Buddha didn't teach how to best deal with worldly situations in order to achieve a goal (I guess 'justice' in this case); he taught suffering and the ending of suffering. 'Should I let the fool know he's being played' is just not within the scope of Buddhism, it's like asking a doctor for help with a broken bike. Maybe they know something about bikes, but it's not why they're here! If you wonder why this question bothers you and makes you suffer, that would be a more suitable topic .

[greentea]

It's dhamma to not get into these situations in the first place. The 5 precepts are a preventative measure.

It is not about me though? It's about seeing your friend getting played by his girlfriend who we assume is monogamous.

The Buddha didn't teach how to best deal with worldly situations in order to achieve a goal (I guess 'justice' in this case); he taught suffering and the ending of suffering. 'Should I let the fool know he's being played' is just not within the scope of Buddhism, it's like asking a doctor for help with a broken bike. Maybe they know something about bikes, but it's not why they're here! If you wonder why this question bothers you and makes you suffer, that would be a more suitable topic .

It is though? Once the guy knows the suffering will just be out and about on him. He could cope now if he just tells him then and there instead of later where he might end up taking care of the other guy's kid. Crimes of passion happen, is it not in our best interest to just confront and clarify the relationship now instead of risking a homicide suicide? It bothers me because clearly there's some tomfoolery amok. I've seen this happen before, not pretty.

[Bundokji]

In the world of attachments, you might be overlooking the role of "fear of losing out" in maintaining the system. If people choose each other for reasons, then this logic stands and is a double edged sword. It follows that they can choose someone else for reasons, and to keep them sticking around, reasons should be maintained. That of course does not make every single action morally blameless by virtue of it being based on reasons, hence morality has a role of its own in maintaining the system.

[greentea]

In the world of attachments, you might be overlooking the role of "fear of losing out" in maintaining the system. If people choose each other for reasons, then this logic stands and is a double edged sword. It follows that they can choose someone else for reasons, and to keep them sticking around, reasons should be maintained. That of course does not make every single action morally blameless by virtue of it being based on reasons, hence morality has a role of its own in maintaining the system.

What if it's the more common situation if him actually getting cheated on and not the uncommon situation of him enjoying being a cuck? This is what the vagueness that the replies I pointed are perpetuating. "Don't make it your business" yet here we are assuming instead of just clarifying the situation and letting it go.

[frank k]

... Is it dhamma to not have my friends back too?

There are other options besides just either spilling the whole truth or not saying anything at all.

If there were people that I considered friends, I would almost definitely give my opinion to every single one of them on encouraging ethical conduct and avoiding evil conduct. Note that can be done without reference to any specific name of a person or event, but would provide enough of a hint that they can guess how your comment might help them.

But that's just me. For other people, if you don't think what you say is likely to help, best to keep quiet.

[Bundokji]

What if it's the more common situation if him actually getting cheated on and not the uncommon situation of him enjoying being a cuck? This is what the vagueness that the replies I pointed are perpetuating. "Don't make it your business" yet here we are assuming instead of just clarifying the situation and letting it go.

I am not sure if any of the replies implied that enjoys being a cuck, but to acknowledge that we do not know everything The OP in the thread you shared was referencing his vantage point and what he came to witness. Probably, this is all he knew about the subject matter, but to equate what we know with what really happened is not warranted.

On the other hand, even if we take what came to our attention as a given, we can always acknowledge the complexity of the human situation and refrain from moralizing. In my view, there is a difference between moralizing and encouraging moral action in others. The former is often driven by self-righteousness, and the later is driven by recognizing the benefits of moral action and the harms associated with evil doing.

To acknowledge the conditionality of the sensual realm is to see what is usually overlooked or oversimplified. For example, the story mentions that Steve has big hands, which could be an attractive feature for a woman who is young, at her prime, neglected by a suicidal boy friend who keeps his hands busy playing video games. There can be many forces at play. Here, Arthur Schopenhauer comes to mind:

With young girls Nature seems to have had in view what, in the language of the drama, is called a striking effect; as for a few years she dowers them with a wealth of beauty and is lavish in her gift of charm, at the expense of all the rest of their life; so that during those years they may capture the fantasy of some man to such a degree that he is hurried away into undertaking the honorable care of them, in some form or other, as long as they live—a step for which there would not appear to be any sufficient warranty if reason only directed his thoughts. Accordingly, Nature has equipped woman, as she does all her creatures, with the weapons and implements requisite for the safeguarding of her existence, and for just as long as it is necessary for her to have them. Here, as elsewhere, Nature proceeds with her usual economy; for just as the female ant, after fecundation, loses her wings, which are then superfluous, nay, actually a danger to the business of breeding; so, after giving birth to one or two children, a woman generally loses her beauty; probably, indeed, for similar reasons.

In Buddhism, attachments are a result of not understanding conditioned phenomena. This is emphasized again and again, not only in the teachings, but also in Buddhist art. There is a nice movie about it! You can find the relevant section between 11:45 and 12:45:



This is why, most Buddhists take the training in Sila primarily as an aid to meditation, not as a tool to solve social issues or to perform social duties.

[Jack19990101]

Intention is what matters.
We would have to be very honest about ourselves. We also require to study and contemplate what is wholesome and unwholesome - they are not same with conventional criterias.

When we encounter a situation irritable to us, we have to exercise caution and sati. those are high stake baits for trap. We are too driven to get rid of the discomfort in our heart, we end up doing a lot damaging kamma.

In overall, non-action as long as there is emotion involved. You do or talk only when emotion has dispersed. That is when it is safe kammically.