Resolve Conflict Or Not?

[No_Mind]

I find my question rather hard to explain. But will try.

In my experience, at any given moment, if we are interacting with a dozen people (friends, family, co-workers) some are going to be dissatisfied with us.

I have kept a log of my interactions with my two siblings, and seven colleagues for past 6 months.

At any given moment at least three are unhappy about something I did or they imagined that I did (As I grow older I find various kinds of neurotic/manipulative/narcissistic behaviors to be more common than I thought. Probably because I am now predominantly dealing with those between 45-55 - the time at which various crisis happen to the body and mind due to reverse puberty as well as an "unwell" stage due to first signs of real aging setting in)

Is it my duty as a Buddhist to make people happy? Should I always strive for a good resolution to every problem? Try and work it out with them, coax, cajole. In a word be a very agreeable person.

Or, is a Buddhist allowed to walk away. The problem with this is it effectively means doling out silent treatment and that makes neurotic people more neurotic.

Unlike films in real life an excitable person doesn't suddenly turn into an attentive student and correct their mistake.

I really don't know if I was able to describe the question properly. Tried my best. Advice or insight is welcome.



No_Mind

[Sam Vara]

I find my question rather hard to explain. But will try.

In my experience, at any given moment, if we are interacting with a dozen people (friends, family, co-workers) some are going to be dissatisfied with us.

I have kept a log of my relationships with my two siblings, and seven colleagues for past 6 months.

At any given moment at least three are unhappy about something I did or they imagined that I did (As I grow older I find various kinds of neurotic/manipulative/narcissistic behaviors to be more common than I thought. Probably because I am now predominantly dealing with those between 45-55 - the time at which various crisis happen to the body and mind due to reverse puberty as well as an "unwell" stage due to first signs of real aging setting in)

Is it my duty as a Buddhist to make people happy? Should I always strive for a good resolution to every problem? Try and work it out with them, coax, cajole. In a word be a very agreeable person.

Or, is a Buddhist allowed to walk away. The problem with this is it effectively means doling out silent treatment and that makes neurotic people more neurotic.

Unlike films in real life an excitable person doesn't suddenly turn into an attentive student and try and correct their mistake.

I really don't know if I was able to describe the question properly. Tried my best. Advice or insight is welcome.



No_Mind

There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised.

(Dhp 228)

Even the Buddha was blamed and falsely accused. I think that in those situations he spoke the truth, but didn't go out of his way to effect a reconciliation with that person.

I don't think you have a duty to make other people happy, simply because it is impossible. Whatever you do, someone will object to it. The best we can do is to help where we can, try not to deliberately offend just for the sake of it or because we gain some emotional gratification from it, and leave it at that. Here is some excellent advice 1(the whole article is one of my all-time favourites!) from Paññobhāsa:

One key point to bear in mind is that Buddhist ethics thus really is subjective; an action is good or bad depending on its effect on one’s own consciousness, not on the consciousness of someone else. It tends to be the case that hurting others involves unskillful mental states, although this does depend upon volition—which, again, is karma. So let’s say a person takes someone else’s property by mistake because it looks like his own and he doesn’t have his glasses on. Well, he hasn’t really stolen anything, and aside from not paying sufficient attention he has done nothing wrong. Same goes for speech: If a person believes something to be true and says so, and is mistaken because it isn’t true, then so long as that person had no intention of deceiving anyone he is innocent of lying. By the same token, a person may calmly state his honest opinion, and he has done nothing wrong so long as he has no malicious intention of harming anyone—so whether a hypersensitive person is offended or not is irrelevant to the moral quality of the action. A lot of western liberal Buddhists really don’t get this.

Even a certain amount of callous indifference towards others and their feelings is not necessarily wrong from a Buddhist point of view. If someone considers it important to state a fact, even if he knows it will ruffle some feathers or hurt some feelings or cause maladjusted people to feel unsafe, then stating that fact is not immoral or wrong, regardless of any subsequent hysterical caterwauling or flash mobs on Twitter. It depends upon the motive of the agent, not upon the reactions of anyone else.

and

In conclusion I would advise the reader (that’s you) that, before doing or saying anything that you know will have someone’s panties in a twist, take care that you have an honest reason for doing or saying it, and don’t have as your motive the desire to put their panties in a twist. Then if they do get upset, well, that’s on them, not you. That’s their own unskillful or “immoral” reaction to what they don’t like, even though they’ll undoubtedly blame you for it. Don’t enslave yourself to the neuroses of others by playing by their rules. Trust your own conscience, try to do what is right, and be happy, and relatively free.

https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blog ... dhism.html

This is perhaps a complicated expansion of another verse from the Dhammapada:

"There is no fellowship with the fool".

[binocular]

"There is no fellowship with the fool".

And sometimes, that fool is the man in the mirror.

Self-help books about relationships sometimes point out that one needs to make sure that one isn't the difficult person oneself to begin with.
It's convenient to blame others. And it's easy to be completely ignorant of the way one treats others.

[Sam Vara]

"There is no fellowship with the fool".

And sometimes, that fool is the man in the mirror.

Self-help books about relationships sometimes point out that one needs to make sure that one isn't the difficult person oneself to begin with.
It's convenient to blame others. And it's easy to be completely ignorant of the way one treats others.

Yes, of course. Normally, in my case! Most of us have defilements which we can be blind to because we are so habituated to them. If one realises the person in the mirror is a fool, then one is relatively fortunate:

A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.

(Dhp, Balavagga)

And note Paññobhāsa's point is not about who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", whatever those terms are taken to mean. It is about acting ethically. If other people are upset by your actions, then that's perfectly OK providing upsetting them was not your goal. Their upset is their responsibility, just as your upset is yours. You can be ignorant of how people are expecting to be treated, but that's not your problem.

[MettaDevPrac]

Is it my duty as a Buddhist to make people happy? Should I always strive for a good resolution to every problem? Try and work it out with them, coax, cajole. In a word be a very agreeable person.

Or, is a Buddhist allowed to walk away. The problem with this is it effectively means doling out silent treatment and that makes neurotic people more neurotic.

Maybe there's a middle path.

Strengthen the wholesome. Interrupt, do not feed, the unwholesome.
If you walk away, then let your thoughts also walk away; don't endlessly rehash, it's not a duty, but if insights arise, examine them.
Everythng which is conditional is impermanent.

[No_Mind]

I don't think you have a duty to make other people happy, simply because it is impossible. Whatever you do, someone will object to it. The best we can do is to help where we can, try not to deliberately offend just for the sake of it or because we gain some emotional gratification from it, and leave it at that. Here is some excellent advice 1(the whole article is one of my all-time favourites!) from Paññobhāsa:

Excellent Sam. Great advice.

Over the past 6 years, everything that Buddhism has contributed to my life has been enormously positive, but I have turned into an inveterate people pleaser, a trait I seek to change.

Of course not with rudeness but learning to walk away. One of the fallacies that probably many convert Buddhists like me suffer from is to try and make everyone equally happy. This is a draining experience when done for 4-6 years. And there is an emotional cost attached to it that prevents spiritual progress.

Is it my duty as a Buddhist to make people happy? Should I always strive for a good resolution to every problem? Try and work it out with them, coax, cajole. In a word be a very agreeable person.

Or, is a Buddhist allowed to walk away. The problem with this is it effectively means doling out silent treatment and that makes neurotic people more neurotic.

Maybe there's a middle path.

Strengthen the wholesome. Interrupt, do not feed, the unwholesome.
If you walk away, then let your thoughts also walk away; don't endlessly rehash, it's not a duty, but if insights arise, examine them.
Everythng which is conditional is impermanent.

The problem with this approach is that it is very strenuous to try and figure out in every relationship exactly how neurotic (on a scale of 0-10) the other person is and calibrate "middle path" accordingly. That time and energy can be better spent elsewhere.

Middle-aged people often turn neurotic.

It has been blamed on everything from the wrong type of gut flora to side effects of medication and, of course, the stress of feeling older.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... who-we-are
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -and-brain

Benevolent aloofness and walking away when a conversation/interaction/relationship veers off the trodden path into gaslighting/manipulative/narcissistic territory is the prescription that I think works best.

[MettaDevPrac]

.

Is it my duty as a Buddhist to make people happy? Should I always strive for a good resolution to every problem? Try and work it out with them, coax, cajole. In a word be a very agreeable person.

Or, is a Buddhist allowed to walk away. The problem with this is it effectively means doling out silent treatment and that makes neurotic people more neurotic.

Maybe there's a middle path.

Strengthen the wholesome. Interrupt, do not feed, the unwholesome.
If you walk away, then let your thoughts also walk away; don't endlessly rehash, it's not a duty, but if insights arise, examine them.
Everythng which is conditional is impermanent.

The problem with this approach is that it is very strenuous to try and figure out in every relationship exactly how neurotic (on a scale of 0-10) the other person is and calibrate "middle path" accordingly. That time and energy can be better spent elsewhere.

Middle-aged people often turn neurotic.

It has been blamed on everything from the wrong type of gut flora to side effects of medication and, of course, the stress of feeling older.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... who-we-are
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -and-brain

Benevolent aloofness and walking away when a conversation/interaction/relationship veers off the trodden path into gaslighting/manipulative/narcissistic territory is the prescription that I think works best.

That sounds fine, actually.

[binocular]

And note Paññobhāsa's point is not about who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", whatever those terms are taken to mean. It is about acting ethically. If other people are upset by your actions, then that's perfectly OK providing upsetting them was not your goal. Their upset is their responsibility, just as your upset is yours.

It's not rocket science, and it takes two to tango.

I find that problems in interactions with others come about because of a unilateral demand for acknowledgment. When one person wants the other person to acknowledge them, but in return they refuse to acknowledge them as well, this is a recipe for difficulties with people. And the one who cries foul is the one who wants to be acknowledged by others, but who refuses to acknowledge others.

You can be ignorant of how people are expecting to be treated, but that's not your problem.

Oh, they can make it your problem. The law, for one, makes this possible. The law, and then Smith & Wesson, and associates.

And secondly, people's expectations about how they deserve to be treated are generally in line with social norms; for the most part, they are not idiosyncratic to every individual. And when everyone behaves in line with social norms, interpersonal friction is minimal. That's the purpose of social norms.

Of course, when people are ignorant of social norms, or idiosyncratically don't care about them, or are living in a society that is (rapidly) degenerating, difficulties emerge, predictably so.

[binocular]

Over the past 6 years, everything that Buddhism has contributed to my life has been enormously positive, but I have turned into an inveterate people pleaser, a trait I seek to change.

You, a people pleaser??!

One of the fallacies that probably many convert Buddhists like me suffer from is to try and make everyone equally happy.

Where did you get the idea that it's your job as a Buddhist to make others happy? A Dalai Lama book?

[binocular]

Middle-aged people often turn neurotic.

Nah. Some, perhaps many, just finally come to the point where they don't allow others to push them around like little children anymore.

To finally grow up -- how preposterous!

[Sam Vara]

And note Paññobhāsa's point is not about who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", whatever those terms are taken to mean. It is about acting ethically. If other people are upset by your actions, then that's perfectly OK providing upsetting them was not your goal. Their upset is their responsibility, just as your upset is yours.

It's not rocket science, and it takes two to tango.

Err...yes, that's so. This aspect of Buddhist ethics goes against the grain for many people, though, including myself. It's difficult to live up to.

I find that problems in interactions with others come about because of a unilateral demand for acknowledgment. When one person wants the other person to acknowledge them, but in return they refuse to acknowledge them as well, this is a recipe for difficulties with people. And the one who cries foul is the one who wants to be acknowledged by others, but who refuses to acknowledge others.

Yes, I'm sure some problems occur because of that.

Oh, they can make it your problem. The law, for one, makes this possible. The law, and then Smith & Wesson, and associates.

They might, but that's a different issue. I doubt if No_Mind's family and friends are likely to shoot him.

And secondly, people's expectations about how they deserve to be treated are generally in line with social norms; for the most part, they are not idiosyncratic to every individual. And when everyone behaves in line with social norms, interpersonal friction is minimal. That's the purpose of social norms.

It depends on the social norms, doesn't it? Some social groups reward friction and the norms are about perpetuating conflict. That's why the monastic Sangha is quieter and happier than most sporting groups or political parties; there is a lot of explicit emphasis on harmony. I suspect that when norms incorporate Paññobhāsa's insights quoted above, things are set fair for happiness.

Of course, when people are ignorant of social norms, or idiosyncratically don't care about them, or are living in a society that is (rapidly) degenerating, difficulties emerge, predictably so.

Indeed, but again, that's not about ethics, nor does it seem to be an aspect of No_Mind's predicament.

[mikenz66]

And note Paññobhāsa's point is not about who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", whatever those terms are taken to mean. It is about acting ethically. If other people are upset by your actions, then that's perfectly OK providing upsetting them was not your goal. Their upset is their responsibility, just as your upset is yours.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this sentence, since on the face of it this sound like a rather reckless and uncaring attitude. Presumably what you mean is that after attempting to act or speak well:

“Mendicants, speech that has five factors is well spoken, not poorly spoken. It’s blameless and is not criticized by sensible people. What five? It is speech that is timely, true, gentle, beneficial, and loving. Speech with these five factors is well spoken, not poorly spoken. It’s blameless and is not criticized by sensible people.”
https://suttacentral.net/an5.198/en/sujato

it still annoys the other.

As opposed to having a careless attitude of not considering whether what you are doing or saying will be upsetting, and just doing whatever you feel like, and being surprised when it annoys others. I'm sure that's not what you meant...


Mike

[Sam Vara]

And note Paññobhāsa's point is not about who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", whatever those terms are taken to mean. It is about acting ethically. If other people are upset by your actions, then that's perfectly OK providing upsetting them was not your goal. Their upset is their responsibility, just as your upset is yours.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this sentence, since on the face of it this sound like a rather reckless and uncaring attitude. Presumably what you mean is that after attempting to act or speak well:

“Mendicants, speech that has five factors is well spoken, not poorly spoken. It’s blameless and is not criticized by sensible people. What five? It is speech that is timely, true, gentle, beneficial, and loving. Speech with these five factors is well spoken, not poorly spoken. It’s blameless and is not criticized by sensible people.”
https://suttacentral.net/an5.198/en/sujato

it still annoys the other.

As opposed to having a careless attitude of not considering whether what you are doing or saying will be upsetting, and just doing whatever you feel like, and being surprised when it annoys others. I'm sure that's not what you meant...


Mike

Yes, I'm certainly not saying that you can just "do whatever you feel like". If you feel like upsetting them, then you should refrain from speaking or acting in that way. If your speech and action is not motivated by a desire to upset them, then your intention was not in that respect unwholesome. It might be unwholesome in other ways, of course, but that would always be the case, even if one was constantly seeking to resolve conflict.

(Edit)
It occurs to me that Binocular's point I quoted above is relevant here. If someone is demanding something you cannot give - a particular form of validation, say, or a set of compliant behaviours on your part - then it's wiser to upset them by telling the truth and letting them get on with the consequences, than it is to tell lies in order to help them feel good.

[mikenz66]

It occurs to me that Binocular's point I quoted above is relevant here. If someone is demanding something you cannot give - a particular form of validation, say, or a set of compliant behaviours on your part - then it's wiser to upset them by telling the truth and letting them get on with the consequences, than it is to tell lies in order to help them feel good.

Yes, that would be a case of upsetting, true, and (by your assessment) beneficial. So you would then, presumably, be careful to find the right time and speak with kindness..


Mike

[Sam Vara]

It occurs to me that Binocular's point I quoted above is relevant here. If someone is demanding something you cannot give - a particular form of validation, say, or a set of compliant behaviours on your part - then it's wiser to upset them by telling the truth and letting them get on with the consequences, than it is to tell lies in order to help them feel good.

Yes, that would be a case of upsetting, true, and (by your assessment) beneficial. So you would then, presumably, be careful to find the right time and speak with kindness..


Mike

It would certainly be theoretically possible to satisfy all the criteria listed in AN 5.198, but of course it often proves to be practically impossible for householders to hit all the buttons in real life, as per the issues alluded to in the OP. The big problem here is timeliness, as so often a situation demands an immediate response and our minds don't seem to work as skilfully as we would like.

One important issue here is that seeing the ethics as being concerned with one's own subjective states, one must not be lured by formulations or translations into thinking that there are situations where hypotheticals such as other people's anticipated reactions over-ride one's good intentions. For that reason, I'm not sure that I would agree that any course of action I have advocated here would be "upsetting". People might be upset by it, but that would not be one's intention. Providing one does not intend to upset the person, they are the owners of their responses. So, in the order given in the suttas:

1) Unrealistic demands upon one can certainly be met in a timely way, and one can at least attempt to speak at the right time. Of course, that may not be right for the recipient, but we can at least try. We cannot always drop everything, etc., or wait until they are in a better mood.

2) Yes, one's response can be truthful. This is merely the truth as one sees it, of course, and the recipient is very likely to see it differently, but again we can only do our best.

3) If we don't intend to upset people, then we are probably already being as gentle and mild (sanha) as we think is consistent with getting our message across.

4) The "beneficial" bit is easy, in that the term means "meaningful regarding the goal". It doesn't seem to warrant treating our interlocutor's goal as important. Their goal might be to seduce, humiliate, express anger, etc. It's not their benefit as they see it.

5) Acting with a mind of friendliness is certainly compatible with frustrating a neurotic person's supposed claims on one. If you don't play by their rules, they won't like it, and may well claim that you are not being friendly. But the term is "with a friendly mind", not with the intention to gratify their impulses.