PDA

View Full Version : Mixed Emotions.



Murchovski
30 Nov 11, 02:32
When it comes to dealing with loving emotions, things are not always as clear as good intentions indicate.

There are always conflicting means when it comes to addressing problems. For example what if a very cunning close relative, who has suffered, is also manipulative in their demands for 'love', attention etc, but by their very psychotic approach makes sane caring impossible by virtue of wanting you to play mind games?

Compassion is all very well, but did Buddha say much about where to draw the line. Is it O.K to ignore some people by virtue of their mental/ physical condition, when efforts for decades have proved fruitless and may well have exacerbated the problems.

The complexity of life lends itself to a lot of nuancing; not many issues are clear cut and while some or all people may be victims of their own ignorance/karma or whatever surely we need to look very carefully at how we evaluate good acts.

In an earlier thread I mentioned the idea of Idiot Compassion and must say I still find this issue hard to get around.

Freedom from suffering, in a very broad sense, may well be to free oneself from excessive and inappropriate desires but how does one convey this view to those on hugely divergent tangents? Speaking from my own personal position, I have tried to help people and always, seemingly, to my own disadvantage in many ways. I am not stupid and have not tried to assist with offering drugs, alcohol, or immoral advice. One can only do one's best........perhaps I am stupid as alot of 'this stuff' has gone on for decades.

I do not consider myself a good or pious person; conversely I think that the general tenets of Buddhism as I percieve it, may come across as pushing the intrinsic goodness of all sentient beings just a little too strongly.

Yuan
30 Nov 11, 06:56
I might sound sacrilegious to most Buddhists for saying this, but I don't think Buddha or Buddhism is meant to have unlimited compassion for all and to save mankind.

When Buddha was enlightened, at first, he didn't want to teach his method to other people because he thought people would not understand his teachings. If an enlightened being is suppose to have compassion above all else, why would he even had to ponder this point?

As far as I am concern, he definitely draw lines and based on some of the stories that I read, he certainly did not try to teach everyone.

So how do you draw lines? I think it should be based on your resources and the people receiving your compassion.

You certainly don't want to go over your head helping people, and you should not be harmed in the process either. No one should be dumb enough to borrow money on credit card to donate to charity, because you would ruin yourself, and soon, you won't be able to help other people anymore.

The second point is that you also don't want to be victim to parasites, nor do you want to create parasites. There are people out there who are very good at leeching out of people's good wills. You really want to cut these people off, because their goal is to drag you in with them. And once they used you up, they will find someone else to leech. This is true materialistically and emotionally as well.

Helping people have a cost. It costs money, effort, energy, knowledge, and emotions. If you are out of these resources, how would you help other people in the future? But more importantly, how would you improve and move forward?

Like you said, life is complicated. Part of being liberated is to know how to navigate the land mines. There is nothing wrong with getting blown up from time to time, because we all learn from our mistakes. It is important, however, to know that you had stepped on a land mine and do your best not to step on that particular kind of land mine again.

We are all on different points on our path to enlightenment, and there are certain people who might be outside of our abilities to help. And you know, that's OK. Maybe a few years from now, you will be stronger and wiser, and you will know how to help these people. For now, it might be prudent to admit that you are not omnipotent and leave these people be.

andyrobyn
30 Nov 11, 07:10
Hi Murchovski, I am not sure what you mean by saying that someone has a psychotic approach to getting their needs for attention, caring etc met.

Traveller
30 Nov 11, 07:54
Do you mean psychotic in the clinically accepted definition of the word or the colloquial definition Murchovski?

andyrobyn
30 Nov 11, 08:00
I am not familiar with a colloquial respectful use of the word psychotic here in Australia - Murchovski is an Aussie like me, I think, however he may know something of the word's use which I do not.

Traveller
30 Nov 11, 08:37
Well Andy, I generally use the word psychotic these days to describe someone who is seriously mentally ill with delusional thoughts, in the UK its often used in its colloquial sense to describe someone who is violent or manipulative by means of personlity disorder or addiction.

Aloka
30 Nov 11, 09:29
Freedom from suffering, in a very broad sense, may well be to free oneself from excessive and inappropriate desires but how does one convey this view to those on hugely divergent tangents?

For me the purpose of studying and practising the teachings of the Buddha is to ideally move towards having more clarity, wisdom and insight myself. This of course includes general kindness and consideration towards other beings. Practices such as 'metta' help with this attitude - and are therefore beneficial to oneself and to other beings we come into contact with.

Its pointless going on crusades trying to convert or 'save' others or tell them my opinions when not asked. First one removes ones own obscurations before developing the wisdom to see the delusion of others. Otherwise despite good intentions its "the blind leading the blind". In my own ignorance, what I might consider the'right' path for someone else, might just cause them more confusion in the future.

So I think its best to aim to be a good example of the teachings oneself - and be kind and help others in small unobtrusive ways if needed, rather than attempting to be one's own idea of a great bodhisattva, or impose one's views on others.


.

Fee
30 Nov 11, 09:33
Murchovski, it sounds like you are dealing with a very troubled individual.

When dealing with my own troubled individual, I try very hard to remember that all I can control is myself.

I listen and I care deeply, but I do not try to fix things which cannot be fixed or help a person who doesn't really want to be helped. (I have been down that road tooooo many times!)

My kindness is to be there. The door is always open.

Fee

Karma
30 Nov 11, 13:43
Helping other people to reduce there anguish is very difficult because they must really want to see things in a different way and then put in the effort to break the habits of a lifetime.

We can't force people to be mindful or change their often short term view of everything they encounter.
I've tried many times, I've convinced myself I can change them, save them, but I can't. I can only share with them (if they want to know) how I try to keep peace of mind.

However, I don't consider my Buddhist practice to be just beneficial to myself. When I am calm and peaceful those around me are often able to relax and be more peaceful, they can feel safe in my company. We influence others with our own actions and this can have positive effects for all we come into contact with.

Esho
30 Nov 11, 16:43
Compassion is all very well, but did Buddha say much about where to draw the line. Is it O.K to ignore some people by virtue of their mental/ physical condition, when efforts for decades have proved fruitless and may well have exacerbated the problems.

Seems that "compassion" is not a very cool issue even in Buddhist practice. And the reason is quite simple. We have to develop compassionate feelings toward oneself before doing this with "the other".

Compassion has not to be supported over relationships, but over the fact of people's common aspiration for happiness.

The person you are commenting about has shown that all his mental structure talks about a deep need of metta but stained with the ingnorance about the existence of Dhamma.

This do not means that you have to be attached to her/him in a mutual destructive relationship. Maybe there is the line that needs to be drawn.

Thus, the important thing is the intention of the drawn line.

One thing is to get ride far from something in terms of aversion and other is that of a healthy healing distance -the drawn line- not governed by aversion, but because metta. A needed distance so to cope well with a situation.


In an earlier thread I mentioned the idea of Idiot Compassion and must say I still find this issue hard to get around.

Genuine compassion is not idiot. It is the complement of metta or loving kindness. Again, what is important is intention guided by compassion. This is, the intention of harmlessness.

The importance of good will and harmlessness is that to be the guide of intentions. Compassionate feelings are about not harbouring harmful feelings toward others.

To draw the line, if possible, should be done with this mental state.


I do not consider myself a good or pious person; conversely I think that the general tenets of Buddhism as I perceive it, may come across as pushing the intrinsic goodness of all sentient beings just a little too strongly.

Don't worry Murshovski. We all are in the process of learning. And seems that nobody is at all.

;D

Murchovski
30 Nov 11, 19:44
Thanks to all of you for the sound and well weighted advice.

Traveller My half sister has a martyr complex, lives as a recluse (to my knowledge?) severe insomnia, prescription drug abuse, extermely manipulative with everyone; she set fire to my mothers flat several years ago, sends me ulta disturbing letters re suiciding etc, contrary to my request, has been involved with weird faith healers etx etc. I reallize you have your own problems but you did ask me. Good luck too!;D

Traveller
30 Nov 11, 19:52
Thanks Murchovski, well what I'd do if she's involved with psych services and drug abuse teams is to involve them when this gets too much for you. There's only so much you can do as an individual. If she isn't involved with social services then get them involved, these services aren't great even in developed countries like ours, sometimes you've got to let the professionals take over. My post above was to try and get an angle on what you were dealing with has she got a defined psych disorder?

Murchovski
30 Nov 11, 22:38
Thanks Traveller.
She refuses to get orthodox treatment, says shes too sick to go out, (except for temazepam)
Same over here, the proffessionals are very slack on helping difficult cases.
The police often refuse to come, too.
Even some really bad cases they just define as "mild personality disorder".

Thanks for your input

Traveller
30 Nov 11, 23:00
Yeah well, one thing I can tell you about serious addicts is that they are extremely manipulative and will do a hell of a lot to feed that addiction manipulation of others affection and compassion being a prime one and a strong benzo addiction is serious. Its a tough call as I said in Karma Yeshe's thread sometimes addicts have to bottom out and really hit the gutter before they wake up, but sometimes that can be fatal for one reason or another.

I'm not sure what to do except for kicking up a massive fuss with the relevant services - I was under the impression that Oz being a federal republic some states have state funded healthcare and some don't. I don't know have you tried talking to a local politician about the inadequacies of any support provision for her, that however may depend on the health policy of your state. If you were here in the UK I probably be able to advise you better Murch mate. Sorry I don't know what else to say atm.

Murchovski
02 Dec 11, 00:53
I agree we can all 'bottom out' and need to try and feel aware all the time of our higher feelings.

If doing some good is difficult it is at least better not to get angry and look to moderation and self control.

Thats my aim. I think this forum has done us both some good. A saint I ain't!:up2:

Murchovski
02 Dec 11, 00:59
Thanks Aloka.

Very true, interference can be a multi edged sword as can be impulsiveness.

It seems our own personal weaknesses are by far the hardest to rectify.:peace:


Sometimes its even very difficult to know what your worst weaknesses/vices are?

david002
02 Dec 11, 02:27
Murchovski, I am new to Buddhism and i'm not doing a good job of following the Buddhas teachings right now. I'm not officially a Buddhist but I have read all of the posts on this thread and I think you have gotten some good advice. I personally have struggled with addiction and I can honestly say that it really depends on the person as to whether or not they are going to recover. Some people don't hit "rock bottom" until they die. I think that has been mentioned before but it is true. I know that it took me a long time of pain and reflection before I stopped thinking about getting drunk to drown out the pain. I don't know if my post helped in any way. I do hope however that everything works out well for you and the troubled person that you know.:peace:

Murchovski
02 Dec 11, 04:18
Thanks David 002.

I think we have to look really, really, hard at the major complexities first, both in self and relationships and become really, really aware of the quick fixes that simply lead to more misery.

Yuan
02 Dec 11, 08:25
It seems our own personal weaknesses are by far the hardest to rectify.:peace:
Sometimes its even very difficult to know what your worst weaknesses/vices are?

Yes, Yes, Yes! This is what it's all about.