Bodhisattva ethical restraints: Auxiliary vows 16-18

• Auxiliary vows 8-16 are to eliminate obstacles to the far-reaching practice of ethical discipline. Abandon:

  • 16. Not correcting your own deluded actions or not helping others to correct theirs.

• Auxiliary vows 17-20 are to eliminate obstacles to the far-reaching practice of fortitude. Abandon:

  • 17. Returning insults, anger, beating, or criticism with insults and the like.

  • 18. Neglecting those who are angry with you by not trying to pacify their anger.

Since we’re talking about the bodhisattva ethical restraints and they mainly have to do with subduing the self-centered thought, it’s important to again and again reflect on the disadvantages of our self-centered thought. And it’s also very important to astutely observe how our self-centered thought manifests. Even when we’ve made a strong determination not to have it manifest, observe how it comes up out of left field and takes over a situation. Let’s try to be aware of that, see the disadvantages, and look at the situation in a different way so that we can counteract the influence of the self-centered thought. If we just notice it and don’t do anything, nothing really changes. We must repeatedly counteract the influence of that self-centered thought. We do that in our daily lives around small things. And we also do it in terms of the spiritual path so that we don’t think just of our own liberation but of the enlightenment of all living beings. With that in mind we’ll share the Dharma now.

Q & A

There were a few questions to go through.

First of all, because we’re nearing the end of the retreat, beginning with next week what we’ll do is put one session of the bodhisattva ethical restraints a week online for the people who will watch. If you’ve been counting your mantra and haven’t finished by this weekend that’s fine, just keep counting. Those of you doing Vajrasattva, just keep doing it once a day until you’ve completed your count, or if you’ve been doing the guru yoga, same thing. The people who are doing the retreat from afar, just because the retreat is over here doesn’t mean you need to stop the practice. Sometimes I get letters from inmates who say, “I enjoyed the retreat so much. I was so sorry to see it end.” It doesn’t have to end; if you’re enjoying it, just keep doing it.

We had a question here about intuition: what is it, what are the pros and cons, is it something that can be developed, or do we just have to uncover it? And what’s the relationship between intellect and intuition? All I can say is I don’t know the answer to any of those questions. I’ve heard Westerners ask teachers these questions a lot, but I’ve never heard a Tibetan talk about intuition. There’s talk about “super-knowledges”—different supernormal powers to know things in the past, to read other people’s minds, or to know things in the future. There’s talk about that and some of the supernormal powers people have because of karma, but they’re not necessarily reliable, and they only last for this lifetime. The ones that are more reliable are the ones that you get through attaining the dhyanas—the form realm absorptions. On the basis of the fourth dhyana, you can develop these supernormal powers. But even these are not as accurate as the Buddha’s. We often hear the story of the old man who cried when Shariputra wouldn’t ordain him because he didn’t see the old man having the karma. But the Buddha had the full super-knowledge and was able to see that yes, the old man had created the karma to ordain. 

Our regular intuition is sort of “I feel like this,” or what we talked about the other day about “vibes.” Personally speaking, I don’t trust my intuition all that much. If I have clear things that I’ve noticed in the environment, that I can really link things to and so on, I’ll listen to those. But this feeling of “I like somebody,” or “I don’t like somebody,” or “Something is going to happen,” I don’t listen much to that because it doesn’t usually do any good. In my experience, when I’ve listened to it it really hasn’t done much of anything. There are other things where you learn from experience how to handle different situations that have happened, and that is some kind of knowledge from experience that you can apply when you sense certain dynamics going on in a particular situation.

Is that how you meant it? Or what did you mean by intuition?

Audience: [Inaudible]

Venerable Thubten Chodron (VTC): It’s more about a split between heart and mind, not between intellect and intuition. I’ve never heard a lama talk about intuition; I don’t even know if there’s a Tibetan word for it. The question concerns our intellect that knows things conceptually and our heart that feels and experiences things. We don’t have a split between those two in the sense that they are all functions of the consciousness, functions of the mind. I think that’s what is meant.

And then someone else asked why it’s not necessary to take the lay precepts before taking the bodhisattva vow. Actually, Lama Atisha said that the seven Pratimoksha precepts—there’s usually eight, but here we’re omitting the one-day precepts because they’re too short—so, the seven lay peoples’ and monastic precepts are the ideal prerequisites for taking the bodhisattva precepts. That’s the ideal way. Many of the lamas say it’s not necessary to have taken all the five precepts. The person who asked the question said, “But if you’re drinking and drugging, how in the world are you going to keep the bodhisattva precepts? You probably won’t even be able to keep the Pratimoksha precepts, and they’re easier to keep.” I completely agree. I think it would be much more difficult to keep the bodhisattva precepts or any kind of precept if you’re taking intoxicants. They also asked, “Do you need to take the five precepts before taking the novice ordination as a monk or nun?” Yes, definitely. You need to have all five precepts, and then you take the novice. And you need to have the novice before you can take the full ordination. 

Then they asked, “Why does it seem like the Nyingmas don’t practice the fifth precept as strictly as the Gelug?” That you must ask other people; I have no idea. I suppose the people who take the precept about not drinking keep it very strictly, and the people who don’t take it don’t keep it. You’re going to have people in each tradition who keep it strictly and people who don’t keep it strictly. Lots of times people ask me, “Why do these other people do this or that, or why do they not do this or that?” Sometimes I try and share my ideas about it and then I realize no, I can’t really do that because they’re just my ideas. If we want to know why somebody else is doing or not doing something, it’s better to ask those people; don’t ask me. I can’t read anybody’s mind to tell you why they do or don’t do something. And within any tradition, of course there’s going to be a variety of different people who practice quite differently. 

And there was the question, “Why doesn’t everybody follow the guidelines as they’re written about how to practice? It’s like, “We have the gradual path laid out, tantra is at the end, and here’s how you do things: why is it that many people don’t follow that?” Again, it’s better to ask those people. I have no idea why they do what they do or don’t do what they don’t do. I think in terms of some of the lamas giving these initiations, I have my ideas about why they do that, but it’s much better to ask them. And in terms of the people who request all those different teachings and try to practice the very advanced teachings, it’s better to ask those people why they request those teachings. It’s not fair for me to try and speak about somebody else and why they do what they do. 

I wonder if you’ll go and ask them. It’s easier to ask me because I can say whatever and then you think you have an answer. But to go and ask the person, it’s like, “Oh, maybe they won’t like my question, or they’ll blame me.” But with any kind of thing, even when we have difficulties with somebody, instead of talking to other people about our problems, we need to talk to the person themselves. With these kinds of things, too, it’s best to go and say, “I don’t understand, please explain to me.” Then you’ll get a real explanation. 

Another question was, “Why doesn’t everybody take the Pratimoksha vows?” It’s the same thing: ask them. I can tell you why I took it. But I can’t tell you why other people don’t take it. I wasn’t very much help on those questions. But it’s much more honest to tell you what I know and what I don’t know rather than to try and make stuff up.

Review: 15. Not rejecting disrepute

We did number 15 last time, “Not rejecting disrepute,” about how important it is when people have a bad impression of us to correct that impression. If we made a mistake, we should acknowledge that we made a mistake. And if we didn’t make a mistake but people have a bad impression of us, they’re judging us or whatever, and they have wrong information, go talk to them and explain the situation.

This is very different than being defensive. Lots of times people will say things to us that we don’t like, and we feel like we must explain ourselves. Our motivation is basically because we don’t want people to think badly of us; we’re very attached to our reputation. Somebody makes some comment, and we think, “Oh, I’ve got to explain myself because they saw me do this and they’re going to think bad of me.” It’s basically defensiveness—attachment to reputation. We’re not talking about that. Because that kind of defensive attachment to reputation, that’s garbage; that’s part of the afflicted mind. 

What we’re talking about here is really caring about other people and knowing that if they have a wrong impression of us or if they have a bad impression of us, it’s going to interfere with our ability to be of benefit to them, and they won’t derive as much benefit. Because we want to benefit them, we want to correct whatever misunderstanding there was so that when we make suggestions, give instructions, or whatever, they’ll take it to heart instead of thinking, “Oh, that person, I don’t like them—go away. I’m not listening to anything.” Keeping this precept isn’t done out of attachment to reputation, and it’s not done with defensive thinking, like, “I’ve got to explain myself so that they don’t think bad of me.” 

It is very important to know the difference within yourself of when you get defensive and when you really care about what somebody is thinking, benefiting them, and getting rid of impediments to doing so.

16. Not correcting others despite their afflictions.

Number 16, also from Chandragomin, says, “Not correcting others despite their afflictions.” Here it says, “Not correcting one’s own deluded actions or not helping others to correct theirs.” The wording’s a bit broader here. When we’re under the power of afflictions, it’s not doing something about our own afflicted actions or if we see other people acting under the power of afflictions, not saying something to them if we think it will be beneficial to them, to help them not create so much negative karma. He says:

The sixteenth secondary misdeed emphasizes our responsibility for the behavior of others. When we have the opportunity to favorably influence people who are behaving badly and can see that treating them harshly would put an end to their negative conduct, we must not hesitate to do so. If we remain silent simply because we are afraid of irritating them, it is a misdeed associated with afflictions.

I’ve talked a lot about living in community and that one of the ways we help each other is by pointing things out to each other. If somebody is breaking a precept, acting improperly or in a disrespectful way, or if they’re doing something harmful or thinking something harmful, it’s good to go to that person and talk to them about it. Say, “I saw this happening, please explain to me how you’re thinking.” If they’re thinking in the way you thought, then discuss it with them, point out the disadvantages, and point out how they can change the situation, think differently, or different ways they can handle it. 

Lots of times we don’t do that. It could be because whenever we’ve tried to do that before, the other person’s walls go up; they’re prickly. They get mad at us, and we just go, “Okay, okay, okay—have it your way.” And out of attachment to ourselves we just don’t say anything to those people because they’re very unpleasant when their buttons are pushed. In those kinds of situations, you must ask yourself, “Is it going to be beneficial to say something to that person even if their buttons get pushed?” Maybe later they’ll think about what we talked about, and it’ll wake them up about something. 

You must think, “Is that a likely thing to happen or is it more likely that they’re going to get angry and tune me out?” In that case it wouldn’t be a misdeed to not go and talk to them about it. If you really felt like it’s just not going to do any good, then don’t do it. But if it’s just because you’re afraid, like, “Oh, I’m going to have to deal with this person who is angry, they’re not going to like me, and they’ll take it out on me” and all this self-concern is coming up, then that’s not a good motivation. It’s self-centeredness, isn’t it? “You just go ahead, you can act negatively, you can break your precepts, you can do whatever you want, and I’m not saying anything because it’s just too unpleasant for me to say something.”

If you choose the self-centered motivation, then discipline in a monastery goes down, people don’t have the opportunity to learn, and everybody just tiptoes around everybody else because people are so good at flaring up and going “Rrrrggh!” the moment somebody says something to them. So then everybody goes, “Okay, I won’t say anything to anybody.” But then what’s it like? Everybody’s walking around on eggshells, people continue all their bad habits, and the discipline in the community doesn’t work well. You need to come back to a good motivation and really care about what’s going on with others. 

It doesn’t mean that you always go and talk to them and push your view, because sometimes we’re just being critical, judgmental, and picking at people. But when you see that somebody’s going down a wrong path, remember it’s a Dharma friend and you care about them, so even if they’re going to get mad, you speak up if you think it’ll benefit them in the end. I’ve had to do that many times, and people get mad at me. But hopefully in the end they think about what I said so maybe at some point some bells will ring. Lots of times people don’t want to say anything to the person, so they just tell me and wait for me to say something to them…

This refers to situations where we see that by dealing with people severely we could help them correct themselves but we do not want to get involved. We say nothing because we fear that they might take offense.

This is like parents who don’t discipline their kids because they want to be their kids’ friends. This is my generation on down. The parents want to be the kids’ friends, so even if the kids misbehave, the parents don’t want to say anything because the kids will get mad. They want their kids to like them; that’s the most important thing. Most important is not that they teach their kids to grow up to be responsible individuals, but that their kids like them. I think that’s skewed. When you’re a parent or when you’re in any kind of position of guiding somebody, your chief responsibility is to guide them properly in a responsible way. If at times they don’t like you, what to do? Hopefully they’ll understand through your behavior that you’re doing it because you care, not because you’re trying to harm. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC:  It’s a delicate balance because we don’t want to go poking in everybody else’s business. Our job isn’t to correct everybody, and sometimes our mind exaggerates things. But on the other hand, like you say, if we just say, “Oh, I prefer not to get involved,” then you see people go down a slippery slope and the situation gets worse—especially with kids. I think that kids really need structure, and when the parents are afraid to say anything because the kids are going to get mad, who’s running the household? The kids are running the house. The kids snap their fingers and the parents salute and say, “What can I do?” Many problems really get worse that way because we don’t say anything.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: What you’re saying is if kids get used to certain kinds of things being handled in certain ways in the house, they’re going to expect the world to treat those situations in the same way. But the world doesn’t, and it’s a big surprise for the kids. It’s very difficult for them because people in the rest of the world don’t put up with the same kind of stuff that their parents do, because the parents are trying to please the kids. It’s kind of unfair because when you think of it: one of the most important things that children need to learn is how to deal with the frustration of not getting everything they want. Don’t you think? Isn’t that an important thing to learn? In life we’re constantly faced with not getting what we want and things not turning out the way we want them to turn out. If our parents don’t teach us how to deal with that frustration, because they always rearrange everything to please us, we go out into the world and don’t know how to handle our frustration. And then it becomes a big problem. 

An exception is when the peoples’ misbehavior is insignificant and concerns mainly affairs of this life alone, and interfering would pain them and distress them deeply.

If it’s something insignificant—just a small thing—it’s no big deal, leave it. We don’t have to go around correcting everybody, because otherwise we’ll drive everybody crazy.

When they would benefit only very briefly from our intervention or when it could at best bring about a very short-lived change in them, it’s better to remain silent.

So, if it’s a small thing, not a big deal, then like they say, “Pick your battles carefully.” If you’re living with somebody and can’t correct every little thing, you look at what are the big things that are really important.

The same is true when our efforts would create great obstacles for them.

We don’t want to do that.

In short, this misdeed consists of letting others make serious mistakes when we could do something to prevent it. The present secondary misdeed, as well as the previous, are both contrary to an aspect of the bodhisattva ethic of helping others, which is eliminating the harmful activities of others.

This is letting people do negative things because we don’t want to get involved. I remember when I lived in Seattle, I would walk around Green Lake sometimes and see people fishing. I knew I can’t go up to perfect strangers and say, “Don’t fish.” That’s not going to fly. They’re not going to listen to me; they’re going to get a bad impression about Buddhism; and it’ll just start an argument. In that kind of situation, I make prayers for them, and I make prayers for the fish. If it were somebody that I knew, that I had a good relationship with, then it would be appropriate to say something if I think that person could possibly listen. Sometimes things are very serious, and people will just get mad at you, but if you feel it’s worth it to get them to look at something and think about something, that’s keeping this precept.

Sometimes practicing the bodhisattva path means you must put your reputation on the line. And our reputation is one of the things we cherish the most, isn’t it? 

Next, there are four misdeeds contrary to the practice of far-reaching patience.

17. Responding to verbal abuse with verbal abuse and so forth.

This is number 17. Chandragomin says, “Responding to verbal abuse with verbal abuse and so forth.” Here it says, “Returning insults, anger, beating, or criticism with insults and the like.” In other words, it’s retaliating.

The ‘Great Way’ says that this misdeed amounts to failing to maintain the causes of patience within us. It consists of behaving in a way that is contrary to the four factors of the practice of virtue by responding to verbal abuse with similar abuse, to anger with wrath, to blows with blows, and to criticism with censure. The first, for example, is the wish to say something very unpleasant in response to what someone said to us that made us angry. The misdeed is necessarily associated with afflictions.

He says:

In the sutras, Lord Buddha taught us not to retaliate in the following four situations: 

When insulted, scolded, accused or spoken to rudely—

In this instance, it’s to not talk that same way back to the other person.

When exposed to somebody’s anger—

If somebody’s angry at us, then to not get angry at them.

When somebody hits us—

In this case, to not hit them back.

When somebody criticizes us—

In this case, to not criticize them back. And if they criticize us behind our back, do not criticize them behind their back. 

This is called the supreme ascetic practice. We usually think of ascetic practice as very little food or it’s cold and you give up pleasure. But this is said to be the actual supreme ascetic practice. Because it’s much more difficult, isn’t it? When somebody does something to us that we don’t like, what’s our instant reaction? We do it back, and that’s very often what we’re taught as children. Someone hits you, then you hit them back. They screamed at you, so you scream back. And this is the example we see on TV of how people behave; it is common worldly behavior. And here we’re told not to do it. So, you can see, it’s a real ascetic practice to abandon it. 

If we investigate what disrupts our life most, we will chiefly find these four circumstances.

It’s true, isn’t it? What makes us unhappy the most? We get insulted, we get criticized, people get angry at us, or they beat us.

When we are subjected to somebody’s anger, for example, if we can exercise patience and fortitude, remain calm and avoid responding by getting angry in turn, we will enjoy greater peace of mind. 

Sometimes when I’m in the prisons and I say something like that, the guys roll their eyes. They look at me and say, “You’re out of your mind. If I don’t retaliate here, they’re just going to walk all over me.” I have a different view. I haven’t been in prison, so I can’t speak from experience, but what I can say is that when people do things deliberately to get your goat, if you react in fear—even though you come on strong to them and might scream or yell or whatever—then they’ve won because they’ve got your goat. We get afraid, we get hyped up about it, and we basically bite the hook. Whereas I think there’s a way to not bite the hook if somebody is trying to do something to inflame us, and this does happen in prison situations as well as outside prison. If somebody’s trying to inflame us, if we don’t bite the hook, the other person’s standing there with it. There are different ways to not bite the hook and maintain your own integrity. 

The guys in prison feel that if you don’t retaliate, nobody will respect you—they’re going to walk all over you. They equate fear and respect: if somebody fears you that means they respect you. I don’t think so. To me, if somebody fears you, they don’t have any respect. They may do what you want, but it doesn’t mean they respect you. Whereas I think when we can hold calm, hold steady, have a sense of our own dignity and integrity, and we’re not falling into fear or intimidation, then people pick up on that, too. 

For example, in prison if somebody cuts you off in the chow line, if somebody butts in front of you, that can start a whole fight. It’s huge because they’re disrespecting you by cutting in front of you. If you don’t stand up to them it means you’re afraid of them and they’re going to keep taking advantage of you. In that kind of situation, I think you can just step back and say, “Please come on in.” Say it sincerely and with ownership of the place: “Please come stand here.” Then you’re not biting the hook, and they’re like, “Okay.”

Another way to handle situations like that is to make a joke. For example, a situation’s going on in a way where somebody’s repeating an old habit then make a joke. And a third way to diffuse it is to change the subject. Give them what they want but give them what they want with a sense of your own integrity. Make a joke, change the topic, or do something that they don’t at all expect. 

I heard a story of a woman walking in Central Park, carrying some packages, and she heard somebody walking behind her, following her. They kept following her. Central Park isn’t so safe. At one point she turned around, looked at the guy, and she said, “Here, can you carry this for me?” and handed him all the parcels. She kept walking, and he was so stunned. He followed her to the edge of the park, and she said, “Thank you very much,” took the packages, and left. You can try something completely unexpected like that. I heard of another woman who some guy was following, telling her, “Hey baby come on, let’s go out tonight.” She turned around and said, “I’m sorry, I’m busy this evening.”

Sometimes those unexpected kinds of responses can help. The basic thing to be aware of is the ‘push-button’ reaction, the habit of buying into whatever energy somebody is dishing out. Like if they’re angry at us, we get angry at them. If they hit us, we hit them. If they criticize us to our face or behind our back, we do the same. If they insult and abuse us, we do the same back. The effect is that it usually just escalates, doesn’t it? It usually escalates; it doesn’t stop it. 

This one’s more difficult to keep, wouldn’t you say? So, in your meditation think of some examples in your life. Then think of how you could handle the situation. The key to handling this one is not coming up with a nifty little strategy. The key to handling it is, “How do I keep my own mind calm? How can I look at the situation, be completely calm, and reply to it?”

18. Neglecting those who are angry.

We’re on number 18. Chandragomin says it’s “Neglecting those who are angry.” Here it says, “Neglecting those who are angry with oneself by not trying to pacify their anger.” We need to understand what this means completely, because if we misunderstand it, we take it to mean becoming a people-pleaser or caving in, and that’s not what this precept is talking about.

Both the eighteenth and nineteenth secondary misdeeds are described as ‘failures to stop the flow of anger.’ However, they are two distinct misdeeds, for in one case the fault is not stopping the flow of peoples’ anger towards us, and in the other not ending our feelings of anger towards others. The eighteenth misdeed, therefore, is doing nothing to soothe the anger of people who are furious with us and just letting it run its course.

Somebody’s mad at us, and we just say, “I don’t care.”

People may be upset with us either because we have done something to harm them or because they believe that we have. Regardless, we are the cause of their ire.

I disagree. I don’t think we’re the cause of their ire; I think we’re the condition of it.

If in this situation we do nothing to tranquilize them by apologizing or explaining ourselves because we are jealous, proud, spiteful, or angry ourselves, we commit a secondary misdeed associated with afflictions. When we neglect to placate them out of laziness or sloth, the misdeed is dissociated from afflictions.

He’s saying somebody’s mad at us, and we should do something to assuage their anger. That’s fine. Why do we do that? Because we care about them. We don’t want them to suffer from their anger when we can explain something to them that would ease their mind. If we’ve made a mistake, go and apologize. If we haven’t made a mistake, give them the information they need in order to some way help pacify their anger because we care about them. 

If we don’t understand this properly, and if our afflictions get involved, we take it as, “Somebody’s mad at me, it’s my fault. I’m guilty. I’m bad because they’re mad at me. Therefore, I need to go and apologize so that they won’t be mad at me. Then maybe I can stop feeling so guilty.” But it usually doesn’t solve our guilt because our problem has been that we’ve taken on something that is not our responsibility. Somebody else is angry, that’s their responsibility. Our actions are our responsibility.

If we take this precept to mean, “I’m responsible for their anger, therefore I must become a people-pleaser,” or, “I have to cave in,” or, “I have to tell them what they want to hear,” then our motivation is rotten, isn’t it? Our motivation is completely self-centered. “I feel bad about myself, and because I feel like I’m the cause of this, the only way I can feel better is to go and apologize to them.” But even that doesn’t make us feel better because when we have that kind of mind, we haven’t been able to separate what is our responsibility from what isn’t our responsibility.

You must be able to separate that out. Then go and help them not because we’re afraid that they won’t like us, not because we want to have a good reputation, not because we feel guilty, but because we really care about them and realize that they’re upset, they’re unhappy. And because they’re upset, they’re creating negative karma through their anger. We don’t want them to create negative karma and experience the results of it. Do you see the difference in motivation between these two things? If we don’t understand this clearly, and if we can’t identify the things in our mind, it’s so easy to get tripped up about this. 

So, it’s something we must be very careful with. We have to work to see what’s our responsibility and what isn’t, and then deal with what is our responsibility. If we acted obnoxious and somebody’s mad, we need to say something and apologize. If they’ve misunderstood something because we didn’t explain ourselves clearly and they’re upset about that, we need to go and explain. That part is our responsibility. Their anger is their responsibility. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: When we take responsibility for other people’s feelings there’s no way to give them empathy. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: It’s true because we become complete people-pleasers and guilt-ridden. We can’t really offer compassion and empathy in that kind of state. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Somebody didn’t understand what you said, and they’re angry because of that?

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: It’s a situation where they didn’t understand what you said. They’re so upset that if you try to explain to them right now, they wouldn’t hear you, so it’s better to leave it. Give them some space to calm down, then talk to them later. It doesn’t make any sense to talk to somebody who is so revved up that they can’t process what you’re saying.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: If you feel like they won’t understand and it’ll only make them angrier and more upset, then leave it. But don’t say to yourself, “They will never ever understand,” because there could come a time when they will understand. Keep that door open, and when you sense a shift in them you can go talk to them about it. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: What you’re pointing out is very good, that we think it’s always like that: “They’re never going to understand.” These are very black and white ways of thinking, aren’t they? And the world’s not like that. How can we say they will always be like that and will never understand?

I just got a letter from one of the inmates that I correspond with. He’s been in prison for quite some time, and his mother was very mad at him about what he was accused of doing that got him in prison, although he says he didn’t do it. His mother has been not speaking to him, not letting him contact his daughters, influencing the daughters to be against their father, and all sorts of things. Just recently she called the prison and asked to talk to him because she’s dying. So, they talked, and he said “We buried the hatchet. We talked for fifteen minutes on one day, and we talked again a couple of days later.” It’s so sad that the mother waited that long, but if he was stubborn, when she called and asked to speak to him, he could have said, “No, I’m not going to talk to her. It’s no use; she’ll never understand. She’s always been like this.” But he didn’t do that. He didn’t retaliate. He didn’t reject her. He accepted the phone call, and it was nice that the chaplain/warden let it go through. He talked to her, and they were able to forgive. I think that was helpful not only for the mother who is dying but also for the son who continues to live. So, let’s not make hard and fast rules about how a relationship’s going to go. We really don’t know.

There are exceptions to this:

An exception to this is when it’s made for a good purpose: it is better for the other people to be ignored because in the long run it will allow them to reinforce their good qualities and weaken their faults.

So, if you think ignoring them might make them think about what they’ve done or give them the opportunity to work through their anger and own their own anger themselves, it’s not a fault to not go and talk to them. 

There are five exceptions that concern the object: The angry person himself is malicious, ill-behaved, has bad intentions and wants to make us apologize to him.

If it’s that kind of situation, there’s no need to go and do it because the other person is being manipulative. They don’t have good intentions in there. Then second is:

Apologizing would aggravate the situation by irritating the person further and perhaps leading to a fight.

Sometimes situations are such where the other person is really raw; you might have calmed down, but they may not have. And if you try and talk it out and they aren’t calm, they just get more upset. In those kinds of situations, it is better to wait until they’ve really calmed down. Third is:

The person is naturally patient and would be indifferent to our apology.

In other words, you know them and they’ve forgotten about it already, so there’s no need to apologize. Fourth is:

The person does not particularly want us to say that we are sorry.

The other person may not feel that it’s appropriate or they may not need that or want that. Fifth is:

Our apologies would embarrass or disconcert the person.

There are certain situations in which if we apologized somebody else could feel very embarrassed by it. In that situation, it’s better not to apologize.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: So, this was a situation of bullying—extreme bullying. People are now talking about this in schools, about how kids bully each other. You’re saying that you tried to brainstorm with Sam different ways to handle it: you getting involved, talking to the principal, talking to the teacher, talking to the parent, or things he could do, and he wouldn’t accept anything. Then one day you told him to be ready to fight, even though your goal was not a fight. And the next day when the boy came in, Sam was sitting, and the boy said, “Get up, I want to sit there.” Sam just sat there and said, “No, we’re done.” That’s what I meant by having our own dignity, having our own sense of what it is, like in relationship to the prison thing of, “No.” Sam told you that if he had to fight the boy, he would, but the boy knew that. The other boy needed somebody to draw a line. He was pushing, pushing, pushing, and nobody drew a line. Finally, when Sam drew a line, he respected that.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Yes, even though he threatened to punch him in the head so hard he wouldn’t get up, yes. And after that he walked away and didn’t bother him again. But it was because Sam said, “This is it.” And he didn’t have to say, “This is it!” and yell, scream, and, “Naaaa!” It was just “This is it.”

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Yes, because if you’re firm people know not to mess with you. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Yes, often in these kinds of situations the issue is one person trying to control another person. When you stand up, you don’t need to be aggressive, you don’t need to be angry, you just need to be firm. Then they back down because they realize they’re not going to get the thrill that they want out of controlling you.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Nineteen is “refusing to accept the apologies of others.”

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: I didn’t understand when you said “purify.” I thought you meant doing the four opponent powers. Yes, whenever there’s a mess with the person, you try and clean it up. But if you know that you trying to clean it up is going to make it worse, then leave it for the time being. Or maybe you think that it’s better to let the other person sit with it. Then let them sit with it. But if you do that because you’re mad and it’s a way of retaliating, that’s not the right motivation.