Auxiliary bodhisattva ethical restraints 19-20

• Method and purpose of making and receiving apologies
• Apologizing according to Non-violent Communication techniques
• Not acting out our thoughts of anger
• Different ways to work with anger when it arises
• How attachment and anger are related

Gomchen Lamrim 95: Auxiliary Bodhisattva Ethical Restraints 19-20 (download)

Motivation

In setting our motivation, of course we want to have the motivation of kindness and compassion towards living beings.  Even when we can feel that in our heart, we have to be careful of how it comes out, with how we express it verbally and physically.  Sometimes, we are confused and don’t always have the intention of kindness and compassion.  We may be angry or upset or fearful, so our motivation goes to one of defensiveness and so on.  We have to be very aware of how we express whatever we’re feeling in words and in actions.  That’s the purpose of our pratimoksha precepts because they regulate verbal and physical activities.  

Sometimes, with the idea of being transparent or honest, we may say things that sound threatening to other people.  At that very moment, maybe we’re angry or upset or we feel like we want to slug someone.  We say something like that, and other people may interpret that as threats.  This happens a lot in domestic violence cases.  Often somebody makes a threat because they’re angry. They may not see it as making a threat. They may see it as just being angry and saying what’s on their mind. But it makes the other person fearful and then the other person seeks a restraining order, where they forbid the other person from having contact with the person who feels threatened.  We have to be careful in these kinds of situations because we may say something and not really realize how somebody else is taking it.  Domestic disputes are one example, but this can happen in the workplace, too. It can happen in all sorts of situations with others.  

So, even though at the moment we may feel angry, we need to get in touch with our underlying wish to be a compassionate person.  Even though we may not feel especially compassionate at that moment, at least realize that that’s the direction we want to go in.  We don’t want to go in the direction of assaulting someone.  By getting in touch with that feeling of care and concern for others, one of our basic values, we can use that to consider how our speech is coming across to somebody else and then check if we’re expressing ourselves properly.  This is just something to think about in all of our interactions with other sentient beings.  Our words, our deeds, and even our mental states, affect other living beings, and they affect ourselves.  So, let’s try now to generate a compassionate attitude towards others, really seeing that they want to be happy and be free of suffering, exactly like us.  

I think in some way, wishing others happiness and wishing ourselves happiness come together.  Wishing others to be free of suffering, wishing ourselves to be free of suffering: those things come together.  It’s difficult to have one without having the other if our wishes for happiness and freedom of suffering are actually sincere.  Let’s try and cultivate a sincere wish for ourselves and for other living beings, and then listen to the teachings with that kind of motivation.  

Speech and communication

I’m not sure if I explained what I was trying to get across properly.  I was also thinking of just how often our speech really has unintended consequences if we’re not careful.  Many times, when I was a child, my mother would get so angry that she would say, “I want to kill you.” I knew she wouldn’t kill me.  I knew she loved me; I knew she wouldn’t kill me.  It was like, “Okay, mom’s really mad; I better go in the other direction because I don’t really want to be the recipient of more of this.” But I knew she wasn’t going to harm me.  But if I had been a different kind of child, when my mother was angry and said, “I could have killed you,” I might have gotten really frightened and held onto that fear for a long time. I might have really become distrustful of other people and especially distrustful of my mother.  

Someone once told me a story of how someone’s mother said that she was going to put them in the garbage dump next door and let the garbage man come and take them away. They thought she was serious.  Sometimes we may be angry, so at that moment we say whatever, but it has an effect on somebody else.  People may say, “They’re just angry; there’s nothing to it.  I don’t need to worry about it.” But other people may misunderstand it and say, “I’m really afraid.” For that reason, we need to be really quite careful of the things we say, so that they don’t get misunderstood by other people.  

Then it winds up becoming a real barrier between us and the other person.  But we may think, “I’m being honest and so I’m just putting it out there.” This came up in a discussion when I was in Portland last weekend.  One person was saying, “I just want to tell the truth.” Because I told them my Aunt Ethel story, and he said, “I just want to say no!  Aunt Ethel, I can’t stand this food.” I think that’s the most truthful thing. Because, if I don’t say it, she’s going to continue to make food I don’t like.  So, I should just say, “Aunt Ethel, I can’t stand this food.” I said, “Well okay, that’s your freedom.  Sometimes you can’t push people too much.  Try and think about what her question really is. Try and think about the effect it’s going to have on her if you say, “I can’t stand the food,” after she’s just cooked it for you. Her real question is, “I love you.  Do you understand that?”

So, it’s important to think, “What does telling the truth mean?” If you’re really angry, do you just say to somebody, “I feel like killing you,” like my mom did?  If you said that out in public some people could take that as a death threat, couldn’t they?  Because we have all sorts of people giving all sorts of death threats over social media nowadays and somebody could totally misunderstand it.  Of course we want to be transparent, especially since we’re living here in a community where we’re all trying to help each other grow in the right direction, but we also have to be sensitive and think about how our words could be understood by somebody else. 

On the other hand, there’s also the thing that sometimes some people are very sensitive.  I know for example that my way of saying, “Chill out, this isn’t such a big deal,” is to make a sarcastic comment that exaggerates the situation, because that’s kind of my sense of humor.  But I realize that some people, when I speak like that, feel like they’re not being heard at all, like I’m just shushing them or dismissing them or something.  So, on one hand, there’s the speaker’s responsibility to think of, “How my words can be heard,” and on the other hand, it’s the listener’s responsibility to think, “Am I correctly perceiving this?  Is this actually a death threat?” I knew my mother wasn’t going to kill me.  She said that she wanted to.  She would get really mad at both my brother and me, and it was like, “I want to knock your heads together.” She actually did that one time.  But the rest of the time, I kind of knew that’s not going to happen.  I definitely got the message to stay away, and I stayed away and shut up and backed off.  But one time she actually did that.  

Audience: The sad influence of the Three Stooges.  

Venerable Thubten Chodron (VTC): Oh, there were the Three Stooges, I see.  Anyway, there’s two things here.  On our side, it’s to be careful of how we say something.  On the other side, when we hear things, it’s to actually say to ourselves, “Is somebody dismissing me?” Or what is the real thing that this person is saying?  Is this actually a threat or is it just somebody trying to say, “I’m angry,” and using those kinds of words.  It’s everybody’s responsibility to try and make our communication accurate so that it’s understood.  It’s kind of miraculous when we human beings ever understand each other.  When you think about it, all these people with afflicted minds, how do we ever understand each other?  It’s really quite miraculous sometimes.  

19.  Refusing to accept the apologies of others.

We were in the middle of eliminating obstacles to the far-reaching practice of fortitude.  I think we did seventeen and eighteen, so we’re on nineteen:

Refusing to accept the apologies of others.

What this means is that we are not giving up our anger towards somebody else.  Somebody else comes and apologizes, but we are still angry at them, and we may either say, “No” or show a lot of emotion and turn away from them.  Or we may just kind of ignore them.  Or we might just say, “Oh yeah, kind of, yeah…” That is our problem of hanging onto grudges because we just build up a lot of anger.  

If there’s something that happened between us and somebody else, and they apologize, but we’re still angry, instead of refusing their apology we need to say, “Can we discuss this situation? Because I’m still not at peace about it. You said you were sorry; I don’t understand exactly what you’re sorry about. Also, there was something that happened, and I would like a chance to express my side, and somehow clear up the misunderstanding.” We should do that instead of just looking away and going, “Hmmmm,” or even flat out directly refusing it. We should be courageous, and if we’re still holding on to something, say it and tell the person that we need to work it out, that we want to work it out.  

If we just ignore it and are still angry, we commit a downfall.  We don’t really want to commit any downfalls of our auxiliary bodhisattva precepts.  On the other hand, sometimes it may happen that we apologize to somebody, and the other person ignores us, or they look away, or they make some nasty remark in return.  If that happens, we just have to say, “Okay,” and be good about it.  We’ve done our share; we’ve made peace with it in our own mind.  We’ve expressed the situation and that we have regret, and there’s nothing more we can do to change somebody else’s mind if they don’t want to talk about it.  On the other hand, if the other person says, “I still feel something about it, and I think there’s something we need to work out,” then we should be receptive to that person and say, “Yes, let’s talk about it; let’s work it out.” Then the situation actually gets resolved.  

If we don’t resolve situations, either in our mind or with the other person, these things drag out.  We build-up more of a story about them.  They get exaggerated.  Our mind gets very tight and hard, and that’s not at all helpful for our own Dharma practice.  If you’re tight and angry and holding a grudge against somebody, how are you going to meditate on love and compassion? That isn’t going to work because you can’t have anger and compassion in your mind at the same moment.  So, even for your own sake, you need to work these things out.  But, like I said, sometimes somebody isn’t ready to forgive; we just have to back off, give them space, let them work it out and hope in the future that it can work out.  But when somebody does come and apologize, it is good if we can say, “Thank you for that.” Or, we can make some kind of gesture so that the other person knows that we are also letting go of the situation, that we are also not being angry.  

In terms of apologizing, I was reading one of Marshall’s books the other day.  In NVC, he says that you don’t apologize, because apologizing is coming from moralistic judgment and the idea that you have to make yourself low, that you have to punish yourself and suffer in order to atone for what you did wrong. So, he says, “In NVC, we don’t make apologies because we don’t have moralistic judgements.  We just say something to the effect of, ‘When I spoke harshly to you in that way’ or ‘When I said da da da da, I didn’t fulfill my own need to communicate with you in a friendly way.’” He said you don’t say you’re sorry, you say, “I didn’t fulfill my own need to communicate.” “I didn’t fulfill my own need to respect other living beings,” or whatever it is that you yourself feel that you didn’t live up to—your own value or your own way that you would like to be in the world.  

Now, concerning my idea about what he said: part of it I agree with, part of it I don’t agree with.  The part I agree with is that I think it’s very helpful when we say or do something that is harmful, that we regret it.  We get in-touch with that part of ourselves that does want to be a kind person, does want to have good relationships with others, does want to have integrity, and we realize that we weren’t living up to our own values when we said or did that.  That part of it, I think, is very, very helpful.  Because when we understand that, we don’t get into the self-blame of, “I’m such a horrible person. They’ll never forgive me. How could I have done that? I’m really wicked, and da da da da da, and therefore I should feel as guilty as possible, and somehow the worse I make myself feel, the more I’m atoning for what I did.” That whole psychological dynamic I think is rubbish, and it really impedes our practice.  So, saying, “I didn’t fulfill my own needs to treat people the way I would like to be able to treat them” keeps you from going into all that negative self-talk. 

The part I disagree with is that I don’t think apologies necessarily smack of moralistic judgment.  I think that apologies can be useful when they are sincerely made and when we are specific about what it is we feel sorry for having said or done.  When people come to me, or write me an e-mail, and say, “I’m sorry about what happened Friday night,” I have no idea what they’re talking about.  Because whenever you have something happen between you and another person, there are so many things going on and people say many things.  Are they sorry about this, or are they sorry they said that?  What are they sorry about?  We have to be very clear when we apologize: what are we sorry about?   

I think that saying we are sorry acknowledges to the other person that we understand that what we did was hurtful to them. The part of saying, “I didn’t fulfill my own need to respect other people or to communicate well or to help other people feel safe” is helping ourselves.  But I think to help the other person, it’s good to acknowledge that “Gee, what I said caused you pain,” and then to follow up on that. “I didn’t fulfill my own need to be a trustworthy person that other people can feel safe around.” We didn’t fulfill our own need to be a trustworthy person that other people can feel safe around, because I think we all want other people to trust us.  We all want people to feel safe around us.  We don’t want people to look at us and walk the other direction because they’re afraid we’re going to clobber them, or we’re afraid that they’re going to put a barrel full of their vindictive speech on us.  We see how we disappoint ourselves, but we also admit to the other person that “What I said was painful.” I think that’s good to recognize that.  

And, being monastics, we have to purify.  Marshall seems to think that saying something is virtuous or non virtuous is moralistic judgment.  As a Buddhist practitioner, we have to be able to discern what is virtuous and what isn’t.  We have to be able to say, “I committed non-virtue, and I confess that. I repent it.” Because repent means not only that we confess it, but we also make amends.  That’s the part that I don’t agree with, with the NVC. Because I think as Buddhist practitioners, we definitely have to be able to say it’s non virtue.  But it’s important to say it’s non virtue without adding, “I’m such a bad person. How could I have done that? Everybody hates me. I’ve disappointed the whole community. Now they know what a lousy practitioner I am. Are they going to kick me out?” We apologize without all that kind of rubbish. 

Audience: The part where we’re saying we’re sorry for that specific thing also demonstrates to them that we care.  We care about the relationship and how they are. 

VTC: Yes, we’re acknowledging that we hurt them.  That indicates we care about them and the relationship. 

Audience: I would say that differently.  I would say we acknowledge that they feel hurt.  I wouldn’t say, “I acknowledge that I caused their hurt.” I think that’s hard.  To me, I have to separate the two.  I’m responsible for my behavior, and they’re responsible for their reactions.  If I do misdeeds, some people are not going to be hurt by it, some people are.  So, I like the part of this system that doesn’t make me take responsibility for their reactions.  I agree 99% with what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t use some of the words of cause: “I caused their pain,” or whatever it is, because that’s that’s from their side. 

VTC: But you could say, “I realize that this situation was painful for you.” 

Audience: I would say it that way.  I think it acknowledges to them that you’re showing empathy, but I’m not taking responsibility for their reactions. 

VTC: You don’t want to take responsibility for their emotion, but you do want to link their emotion with our unskillful words.  

Audience: Yes.  Yes. 

VTC: Yes.  If we don’t make that link, we’re kind of saying, “I can say whatever I want to, and I’m not responsible for it.” I think it’s okay to say, “I realize that my words were painful for you to hear,” or “I realize I spoke unskillfully.” And I wouldn’t feel bad about saying, “And my unskillful speech caused you pain.” I can say that I’m not actually feeling responsible for them. I have to own that my speech influenced them.  I’m not groveling on the ground: “Oh, I’m so sorry!  You’re suffering and it’s all my fault.” But I think it’s fair to say that there’s a link between my unskillful speech and somebody else’s hurt feelings.  When I do that, that doesn’t mean I’m responsible for their feelings.  I don’t have to be a people-pleaser and fall all over them and make them feel better.  I don’t have to go, “I’m so sorry!  Your feelings were hurt; I’m so sorry! This is terrible. Do you forgive me?” That isn’t necessary.  

Audience: Did he use the word “condition?”

VTC: Condition? “That my speech was a condition for your pain”: How would you feel if somebody said that to you?  

Audience: I wouldn’t say it.  I wouldn’t say it that way. 

VTC: Let’s say somebody said something that was very hurtful to you.  How could they say it to you without using the word “sorry,” and without using the word “cause” where you would feel that your pain was being acknowledged? 

Audience: There are many ways.  I don’t see that as being hard to do at all. 

VTC: Can you give me an example? 

Audience: Somebody is trying to apologize to me, what would they have to say? 

VTC: No.  Let’s say you said something; you said, “Chodron, you’re such an idiot.  I just can’t take it anymore and I’m really fed up.” Again and again, you just act in this really rude, sarcastic way.

Audience: And then I’m coming to you to apologize without saying “sorry, apologize, or cause.”  I would say, “When I said those words”—I would acknowledge—”I was out of control, and I was feeling this da da da, and I understand that this has an impact on you. This I regret and I don’t know what you’re feeling; maybe you’d like to express to me what your response was to that. I’m part of this. I acknowledge that this could have really upset you.” But I wouldn’t say, “I caused your upset.” I just can’t say that. I can say I’m sorry.  I don’t have any problems with that word.  I feel like the way he’s presenting that has got this Judeo-Christian kind of attitude that Buddhism has helped me to separate from. 

VTC: When you say, “My behavior impacted you,” that also means my behavior caused.  You’re not using the word “cause”, but you are indicating the same thing.

Audience: I wouldn’t use the word “cause”; it’s too direct.  

VTC: But the meaning is still there.

Audience: In my mind, the meaning is not “cause.”  To me, with my understanding of Buddhism, they have their own causation.  I’m just a condition. A trigger is the word they use in NVC.  I don’t like that word so much. I realize that my behavior impacts others, but I’m not the cause of their emotions. 

VTC: Okay, that’s fine. 

Audience: I’m the condition.  But I wouldn’t say that. 

VTC: You’re the condition.  

Audience: But I wouldn’t say that. 

VTC: “I’m sorry. I was the condition!”

Audience: I wouldn’t say that because it wouldn’t be skillful, but that’s how I think of it. 

VTC: Why wouldn’t that be skillful if you’re with a bunch of Dharma practitioners? 

Audience: Well, it might in that situation, but when a person’s upset, I just don’t think it would work, like, “Hey, I’m just the condition.” It’s kind of why I don’t like the word “trigger.”

VTC: You know what I mean?  That’s like saying, “Ok, you’re hurt but don’t blame me.  I don’t have any responsibility.”

Audience: You can use the word “trigger” that way, too.  If your motivation is to distance yourself in any way from your responsibility in this interaction, then that’s not going to work. 

VTC: Right, right.  So, let’s not use language to do that and let’s not use the thought process of, “Well, you know, that’s just their problem.”

Audience: And this is where I think, for me, the whole thing with NVC comes down to motivation.  I don’t care if people don’t get the words right; I really don’t care.  You can tell where somebody’s coming from, to a degree.  We’re all deluded and we’re misreading others, but there’s some level of conventional truth that we have some contact with sometimes, and you have a sense.  Or, if you don’t know and you aren’t clear, you have to ask. 

Audience: I agree because it’s important for me and my own people-pleasing behavior to really understand that I’m not responsible for the other person’s feelings. Because I’m quite willing to take it habitually, and that’s been a huge shift not to.  It’s important to be careful, so that I don’t say it in a way that says, “I hurt you.” To say, instead, “I caused you pain,” is the same thing in my mind.  But also, I need to be careful not to assume that “hurt” is what they’re feeling.  I think that example was good. We can say, “I see that my unskillfulness, which I really regret, had an impact, and I would like to talk about it” or whatever, but it’s not to say, “I’m really sorry I hurt you.” Because I don’t know that.  I’m just assuming that, and I’m taking responsibility for it when I use those words.  

VTC: Because sometimes I can see that my words hurt somebody and I’m okay with saying, “My words were painful.”

Audience: They caused something. 

VTC: Yes, they caused something; they caused pain.  That doesn’t bother me, because I know in my mind, I’m not accepting responsibility for it. 

Audience: I hear you, and I also have found through living here that it’s actually been more helpful for me not to assume what the other person is experiencing.  Just because I am familiar with the usual favorite ways that my mind goes, that isn’t necessarily how other people’s go. I do like the word “impact,” and will then explore more about that. 

VTC: “My words impacted you in a disturbing way”: Is that assuming too much, that they’re disturbed?  Do you not want to make that, “My words impacted you?”

Audience: I don’t really have a problem with you saying your words hurt me or this and that, but I might need to have some space. Because it happens sometimes that people are assuming what I’m feeling, and I find that to be quite annoying. Because I’m not a part of the conversation. They’ve already been the judge, the jury, and everything; they’ve hung themselves. They’ve said what I’m feeling, what my reaction is; they know everything, and they haven’t asked me a thing!  

Audience: So, I’m still not in conversation. 

Audience: So, you’re still not a part of it.  I’ve been on both ends of that.  I’ve done that. 

VTC: So, “My words affected, impacted you adversely.”

Audience: That works.  You could tell me that your words were hurtful, but the main thing is the mindset of the person.  Are you really wanting to listen and understand this person, or are you just putting your little drama on them now, when you’re making this apology. I don’t care so much about the words, but what is happening there really matters.  Is the person really interested to know what you as another human being are experiencing?  And you can tell that no matter what the words are. 

VTC: So, we’re not going to get hung up on the words, although you might still.  No, but it’s true, and certainly with this kind of flippant “I’m sorry.” When you aren’t sorry, that’s useless.  And like I said at the beginning, just saying, “I’m sorry about what happened,” doesn’t give anybody any useful information at all.  

Audience: With thinking about needs and feelings, it seems like in Marshall’s approach, he’s dealing with his feelings and his needs.  And what an apology does is acknowledge that the other person has feelings and needs. 

VTC: Yes, that’s what I think. 

Audience: It’s a simple thing in a lot of ways.  As a little kid they say, “Sorry is an easy thing to say,” but it is so hard for some people to say. You can also ask the person or say it in a way, like “It seems like my words hurt you and I regret that.” You can do that depending on the situation.  With some people, you could ask, “Did what I say hurt you?” And they might blow up at you.  So, it depends on the situation.  But I think what’s missing with what Marshall’s got going on, is that a bodhisattva doesn’t want to put themselves at the main center of things.  That’s what his form of apology is doing, or it seems like that to me.  

VTC: What, what is, what’s it doing . . . 

Audience: Just saying, “I didn’t meet my needs for this and that” is “My, my, my.” What about, “I’m sorry that what I did interfered with your needs and your feelings?”

VTC: Yes, exactly—that was my point.  That just saying, “I didn’t meet my needs” doesn’t acknowledge the other person has feelings and needs.  And it doesn’t acknowledge non virtue, and we have to be able to acknowledge that, I think.  But without beating ourselves up. 

Audience: Doesn’t apologizing also provide the opportunity for the recipient to practice generosity by accepting that apology? 

VTC: Sure.  That’s why I was saying, when somebody apologizes, you show that you accept it if you accept it, and if you don’t accept it, you say, “I’m still feeling turbulent, and I need to talk with you about it.”

Audience: And doesn’t it also provide us an opportunity to be humble and admit that we’re not perfect?  I like to apologize because it’s good for my mind. 

VTC: Yes.  Yes.  

Audience: Shouldn’t we phrase the apology based on what will most ease the turbulence in the other person’s mind?  Because isn’t it more about them than about us? 

VTC: Hmmm.  Is the apology more about them than about us?  That I’m not sure about, because to apologize is a great deal about us in the sense that we have to admit that we had a negative intention and wanted to cause harm. We’re recognizing that our physical/verbal actions were unskillful, and an apology is acknowledging that in the presence of the other person.  In NVC, you could say, “It didn’t meet my needs” or however you want to say it. I think the role of apology, in many situations, may be to ease the pain of the other person.  But we can’t assume that by apologizing or acknowledging our own responsibility—or our acknowledging that we didn’t fulfill our own needs for how we would like to act—all their anger goes [away] because of that. 

We have to be able to make an apology or to own, another way of saying that our part of the thing, whether the other person forgives us or not.  Because their forgiveness, their letting go of it, is their part of it.  We cannot coerce them into doing that.  It’s important that we apologize, whether or not other people accept because for us to be at peace in our own minds, it’s important for us to confess and make amends for our bad behavior.

The apology isn’t only for the other person.  We cannot control their response.  Maybe they don’t want to even see us, and we don’t have the opportunity to give them the apology face to face.  Maybe we have to write them a letter.  Maybe they tear the letter up or whatever it is.  That part we can’t control.  Our job is to work with our own mind and express our sense of regret.  That we have to be very clear about.  But I think we shouldn’t go into the “apology’s only for me,” because the other person does have feelings and needs.  We need to say, “My speech impacted you in a harmful way,” or we need to acknowledge that the other person has feelings, but to not take responsibility for their feelings.  

Audience: I was just thinking, when you were talking, that so much of this has a whole lot to do with forgiveness on many levels, and that really is the healing part.  

VTC: The forgiveness is the healing, and the forgiveness is the letting go of the anger.  Apologizing and forgiving are close, and I think it’s good if we do both.  

Audience: It’s going back to number eighteen about neglecting those who are angry with you by not trying to pacify their anger.  And, it’s also realizing that sometimes it’s true that people get angry, when our intention was really not to hurt them at all.  Being able to acknowledge that without taking responsibility for it is an important part of both of these things. 

VTC: It important to let the other person know, “You may have understood my words to mean da da da da, but my intention was something else.  It was di di di di, and I wasn’t so skillful in expressing what I said.” Even if you think the other person totally misunderstood because they’re way out in la-la land, it’s better to say, “I didn’t express myself properly.”

Audience: Offering the victory.  

VTC: To them, exactly.  It’s offering the victory to them.  I don’t have to have the last word.  Whether it’s true that my words were unskillful or not, I can take responsibility for what they may have been.  And that eases the other person’s mind.  Whereas, if I really want to run a court of law here and say, “I’m sorry that you misunderstood what I said. I was saying this, and you understood something else,” there’s the implication that it’s because you’re a dimwit. That is not so helpful.  

Audience: I agree with what you said and on top of that, Marshall’s method works for me in something similar to what Venerable Jigme was saying.  By saying, “I didn’t meet my need for all these things,” I’m giving the other person a view of my inner state of mind to open up that connection again, to repair the connection. That works for me. It’s not an easy thing to be able to know what’s happening when you are saying all those things, and it can be very embarrassing to ask the person, “What is your state of mind and what are you feeling and needing?” A lot of times, the needs are really embarrassing.  You have to have the guts to let them know and be vulnerable about this. That is a way of healing, and it works for me. I don’t think the other person is out of the picture because you are attempting to open up communication, and you need the other person to accept your invitation to connect again. 

VTC: You want the other person to accept your invitation to connect.  And it’s very helpful to help them accept your invitation.  If you acknowledge that your words or deeds had an impact that was unpleasant for them. 

Audience: I think we all know that sometimes it can be very hard to apologize; it can be very difficult, especially when we’re wondering about what the response we might get is.  So, one of the things that we’re doing for somebody when we accept their apology is, we’re making it easier for them to learn to accept, to be able to apologize in the future and look at their own thing.  Perhaps even through an example, we’re making it easier for them to learn to accept other people’s apologies by seeing behavior.  So, I think it’s very good when somebody apologizes to be able to accept it, not begrudgingly but kindly.  I think it may be hard for this person to come up and say this and see how it’s hard to express what’s going on with you.  I wonder though, if somebody apologizes and you don’t feel like they really are sorry; you may let go of your anger, but what do you do about that?  Do you really accept their apology or is that in the exceptions here?  

VTC: I agree that the apology is accepting that the person who is apologizing is making themselves vulnerable.  Or the person who’s saying, “I didn’t fulfill my own need” is making themselves vulnerable and accepting what they’re saying.  Having a good response to that is accepting their invitation to reconnect and accepting, “Yes, I realize that you’re being quite open and vulnerable and thank you.” It’s a way of saying that.  Now if you think somebody’s making a fake apology there are some exceptions.

Let’s hear the exceptions

There’s no misdeed if it is better for the person’s spiritual development that we do not accept the apology.

Now, in order to make that an exception you have to be very wise.  Otherwise, we use that as a big justification to hold a grudge—double weapon.  

There are two more exceptions.

The first one is

They do not offer their apology properly, according to custom.

That’s the thing of somebody saying, “I’m sorry for what happened” or just some kind of offhanded something.  That’s not offering the apology properly according to custom.  I think in those situations you need to try and open up the conversation and say, “I don’t understand specifically what you’re expressing regret about.  Can you be more specific?” Or say something to open up the discussion, to see, to get the person to really be sincere.  If they just kind of say, “Oh well, you don’t get it, forget it,” and walk away, what can you do?  

The other exception is

We have reason to believe their apology is not sincere.

Again, I think it’s important for us to let go of our anger, whether or not somebody apologizes or expresses their regret about not meeting their own needs.  From our side we need to let go of our anger, regardless.  Because if we spend our life waiting around for other people to apologize, we’re going to spend our life being pretty miserable.  We need to work on our own grudge-holding whether they apologize or not.  If we feel that their apology is not sincere, then try and open it up in some way and get them to think about the situation more. 

Audience: An exception story that happened between us some years ago.  I think I was writing an email; you had asked me to write to someone and I was getting you into a situation in which you didn’t want to be involved.  This seems familiar!  I won’t go into the specifics, but I knew that you were ticked off from the reply that you sent me: “You’re getting us into a situation I don’t want to be involved in.” So, when you came in the door, the first thing I did was stand up and go, “Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry!” You looked at me and you said, “What are you sorry for?” It was really helpful because it helped me to pause. And I did know, I think. I said to you, “I don’t know.  I thought you were mad, so I just said sorry first.” Really, it’s helpful on two levels, right?  First of all, it helped me to pause.  It was a teaching point. “Do you even know what the problem is?” “Oh, that’s true, I don’t.” And it helped catch this habit.  Most of my life I’ll say “sorry” and run away, and not deal with the problem.  That’s my way of appeasement: “Sorry, sorry, bye bye!” It doesn’t actually help mend the relationship and I have not grown.  So, it really helped me to stand my ground and to be clear about what exactly I am sorry for.

VTC: And you’ve seen me do that here sometimes at the Abbey when people will say sorry. “I don’t understand what you’re sorry about, tell me.” Because they need to be clear about it, and I need to be clear, too.  

Audience: I can think of situations where people have thought to demand an apology or require one from either me or someone else.  It’s almost as though they feel, “If that’s not going to happen, then we’re not going to make any headway.” What would be the responsibility of someone on the receiving end of that?  

VTC: Somebody’s demanding an apology from you. 

Audience: It’s almost as though you sense if you did apologize, they’d be better off, but then you’re not clear about what you’re totally apologizing for. 

VTC: That’s a thing you need to be clear about: did I do something that requires an apology or not? We may look and say, “Oh yes, I wasn’t very careful about what I said, and I need to acknowledge that.”

What we need to understand, and what often prevents us from apologizing, is we’re afraid that that means that the other person won.  And that we are lower than them, and we are belittled.  So, we don’t want to apologize out of pride.  If we look and we feel, “I don’t understand. That person clearly thinks I made a mistake.  I don’t recognize what that mistake is.  It seems they’re demanding an apology,” then you have to say exactly the truth. “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what the occasion was that you’re having a reaction to.  Please explain it to me, because I’m in the dark.” Other times somebody may demand an apology, and we may say, “Oh yes, I did make a mistake.” Then we state what it is we regret, or how we didn’t fulfill our own needs. That may satisfy the other person, or it may not.  We can’t control if they’re expecting the kind of apology where we’re groveling on the ground beating our chest saying, “I am so terrible!  I ruined your whole life!  No wonder you hate me forever.” That would be lying, to make that kind of apology.  That would be totally insincere. 

If the other person is wanting that kind of thing, we can’t give that.  We’re willing to talk about what is true for us, but we can’t apologize for things that we don’t feel are our responsibility.  So, what do we do?  It’s hard, because some people are very sensitive and even if you do apologize sincerely in a very nice way, they still hold onto it.  What can you do?  Are you going to sit there and grovel on the ground and do a big theatrical thing?  Because that’s not really going to satisfy them either.  Similarly, if we’re holding onto a grudge, we’re expecting somebody else to grovel on the ground, and only then will we forgive the slob, then that is our problem, our arrogance, and we’re going to be miserable for a long time if we’re basing our releasing our anger on somebody else groveling.  Like I said, it’s amazing that we sentient beings ever communicate.  Totally amazing. 

20.  Acting out thoughts of anger.

That was only seven words, wow!  The next one’s even shorter—it’s only five words:

Acting out thoughts of anger.

You’re mad; you’re ticked off. You really want to let somebody know that they overstepped the line and you’re not going to put up with this kind of stuff, so you—pow! —give it to them.  That’s transgressing this precept.  We have a responsibility as practitioners, if we want to keep this precept, to try and apply an antidote to our anger.  If we keep on applying an antidote, and we’re really working at it but the anger hasn’t completely gone away, it’s not a transgression, because we’re fulfilling our responsibility and applying the antidote, doing our best.  Sometimes our anger is really strong and it’s going to take a while to get over it.  But this one is when we’re not applying an antidote, or we think, “I’ll apply the antidote later.  Right now, I’m really ticked off, and they need to know right now that I’m not going to stand for this business. Later on, I’ll apply the antidote.” That is a transgression.  This one’s very easy to transgress—not applying an antidote for our anger.  

First we have to be able to identify our anger.  We have to learn to be sensitive to, “What does anger feel like in our body, and what does anger feel like in our mind?” This means being able to identify that we’re angry, and being able to say to ourselves, “I’m angry.” That takes some practice.  Some of us never learned, as kids, how to identify our feelings.  We never learned the words to put on certain feelings.  Depending on our skillfulness at even identifying what we’re feeling, it may take us a longer or shorter time.  

For some people, it’s helpful to tune into your body.  Because when you’re angry, the heart’s pumping, the face is flushed, there’s a knot-feeling in your stomach, there’s tightness in your muscles.  That can tell you something.  Also, if you’re aware of the kind of flavor or mood of your mind, that can also let you know that some button got pushed.  There’s just a certain feeling in your mind and it’s like, “I’m not comfortable.” And it’s like, “Okay, there’s something happening here and I’m mad.” Then we can say, “Okay, what was the situation that was the trigger?” And then we can say, “Why did I have to get angry in response to that situation? It’s not, “Why did that make me mad?” but instead, “Why did I have to get angry? What was my button that got pushed?”

When we get angry, we have a button that gets pushed.  So, we can ask, “What’s the thing that I’m holding onto that I’m getting angry about?” Whenever we’re angry, it’s indicative of having attachment.  So, to work on our anger, on our aversion, we have to also work on our attachment, because our buttons are the things we’re attached to.  So, we ask, “What is my button? Why am I angry? I’m holding on to something here. Either I’m holding onto how I think people should treat me, or I’m holding on to what I think is proper behavior. I’m holding onto something.” Who knows what we’re holding on to? “What is it that I am holding on to?” And then it helps us to be able to say, “Okay, I’m holding onto that.  But does that mean I have to get angry?” “What am I holding onto” is NVC language for “What is my need?” I’m holding onto something.  You don’t think that? No? Why not?  

Audience: “Understanding what I’m holding onto,” in NVC language is, “What is the jackal language that’s going on in your mind?  It’s the thought that is fueling these feelings that are coming up.” So, it’s not the needs themselves. 

VTC: But don’t the jackal thoughts arise from unmet needs that we don’t know how to express properly? 

Audience: Yes, they do.  But the part that you’re talking about, is when I’m believing in those thoughts that are giving rise to the unmet need.  Because I believe this person is a jerk, my need for maybe safety, or whatever, is not being met, because I seriously believe this person’s going to hurt me. 

VTC: But usually, it’s, “I have unmet needs for safety,” and, for that reason, I feel the person’s a jerk. 

Audience: I don’t think the needs exist in this kind of concrete way.  It’s like I have this thought that, “Okay, I’m in danger,” so my need for safety is not being met right now.  Then, I have all these reactions that come, but it’s the thought that is fueling this. 

VTC: It’s the thought that…

Audience: Those thoughts that are fueling this are giving rise to these unmet needs.  

VTC: Okay, I need to think about that a little bit.  I’m not quite understanding it, so can we come back to that later?  Because the way I look at it is, if I’m holding onto something, there’s something that I’m needing that’s not getting met.  I’m just explaining how I’m looking.  I’m needing something that’s not getting met, so I get angry about it.  And the anger is the jackal language.  Anyway, it doesn’t matter.  You may say this comes first, and I may say the other one comes first, but the point is, what are we holding onto.  Isn’t that the point?  We’re holding on to something.  So, it’s helpful to ask, “What is it that I’m holding onto?” And the reason I expressed it this way is because, sometimes I think we hold onto our needs.  And, we have a thing, inside of us saying, “I demand that my need be met.” And it isn’t getting met.  So, I’m holding on to that need.  Sometimes we learn to release our needs.  

I know that that’s not the NVC way.  Marshall says all your needs are valid and acceptable, but I have a slightly different view on that, from the viewpoint of a practitioner.  We may or may not agree. But, in any case, when we’re angry we’re holding onto something.  Would you agree with that?  So, what is it that I’m holding onto?  It’s all based on me, isn’t it?  And it’s based on, “I want, I need.  Things should be this way.  Things should not be that way.” So, it’s important to stop and say, “My whole configuration of how I’m understanding this: is that correct or not? Am I demanding that my need be met? Is my need realistic? What is going on in my own mind?” You may or may not agree with what I’ve said, but just think about a self-reflective thing of when you’re angry, to ask yourself, “Why am I angry?”

Audience:  So, do you take the primary antidote to be letting go? 

VTC: You can’t sit there and say, “Let go, let go, let go.” That doesn’t make you let go.  I think the result of applying the antidote is letting go.  The result happens when you apply the antidote and find another way to look at the situation so that you’re not so rigid in your mind. 

Audience: To discover wisdom in that moment is what allows you to let go. 

VTC: What do you mean by “wisdom?”

Audience: Insight into what’s actually happening, what’s actually the case.  

VTC: What do you mean: the external case or your internal case? 

Audience: Both. 

VTC: The external case, who knows?  I think it’s helpful to try and see what has actually happened without all my interpretation on it.  But it’s important to look at where’s all my interpretation coming from, because why am I so upset?  I’m having some interpretation on this thing, so I have to see how my interpretation is erroneous.  

Audience: I was trying to imply about recognizing the erroneousness.  

VTC: So, if I can see how my interpretation is erroneous, and that there’s another way to see this situation, then the anger just doesn’t exist anymore.  

Audience: I want to tie that to the needs thing again.  Even if we have a valid need, we may be attached to our strategy to meet it, which has a lot to do with how we’re interpreting, because we do have certain needs that are conventionally valid. 

VTC: Valid on a conventional level if you’re accepting I-grasping.  If you’re accepting that we are people who are grasping at inherent existence, then this need is valid and our strategy for getting our need met is being frustrated.  That could be another way to see it: “Yes, I have a strategy. Basically, I want an outcome and what I want is not happening.” Doesn’t it boil down to that, whether you call it strategy or whatever?  It’s like, “I want something and I’m not getting what I want,” so I’m ticked off. 

Audience: I think one of the things that’s helpful with this whole process is to have some acceptance of how my mind is thinking, and that happens way before I can figure out what I’m holding on to and think about letting it go.  At least that’s how my mind has been.  It’s having to figure out how to have some acceptance of what it is that’s going on with me, what my mind is thinking. 

VTC: What your mind’s thinking or what you’re feeling?  

Audience: Either, but without judgment, because my hang up for many years was that these things would come into my mind, and I’d just wail on myself, and then stay stuck in it, and stay far away from ever moving anything.  This whole idea about accepting without judgment was a first step for me before I could get to these other pieces. 

VTC: Sometimes when I give talks on anger, people will come up to me afterwards and say, “You said we shouldn’t get angry.” And I say, “Are you sure?  Check the tape, I don’t think I said that.” I think what you’re saying is this need to accept what you’re feeling is fulfilling that part of it.  It’s like, “Okay, this is what I’m feeling.” So, I explain to people that I’m not saying you shouldn’t get angry. If you’re angry, you’re angry. You accept that you’re angry. The thing is, do you want to continue to be angry?  That’s the thing.  

Audience: You will never get to that unless you…

VTC: Unless you’re able to say, “I’m angry.” And that’s the thing of identifying what we’re feeling, and “I’m angry.” We may even say, “Look, it’s not so good that I’m angry; this is painful and creating negative karma. I really don’t want to stay in this, but I acknowledge that this is what I’m feeling.” You have to acknowledge it and then say, “Do I want to continue being angry?” If you want to continue being angry, go ahead.  Just realizing that you’re going to be miserable, you’re transgressing this precept, and creating a ton of negative karma.  But if you realize, “Hey, I’m angry. I recognize my anger is causing me pain. It’s causing me to say and do things that I really don’t want to experience the results of, and it’s making me hurt other people that I actually care about. I need to apply some antidote to my anger.” Then you’re not suppressing it, but the anger just is not arising.  

For example, if somebody criticizes me, if I say to myself, “This is the result of my own negative karma of criticizing others,” that helps me accept the situation, and I cease to be angry at the other person.  “This is a result of my own self-centered mind, and I’m experiencing that result.  If I don’t like it, I better really be on guard against my self-centeredness.” I may do it that way or I may do it as: “I really would like this person to acknowledge such and such,” or “I would like them to be this way,” or “I would like that, and they’re not doing it.  And, in fact, they’re acting the opposite way.  And they’re not being sensitive to my needs, and nyah nyah nyah, nyah, nyah.” It’s to be able to say, “You know, you can’t control the world.  Somebody’s suffering, they’re acting this way. You can’t control the world.  You need to have some compassion for this person.” That helps.  And then there are all the other ways of working with anger. 

Audience: In my own experience working with anger, anger for me is a secondary emotion.  The anger is actually an alarm system, because when I look at the anger, a layer down usually is being hurt.  You’re feeling hurt; you’re feeling embarrassed.  Those really tender, embarrassing kind of feelings. 

VTC: Afraid.  

Audience: Yes, afraid, fear—all these things.  It’s anxiety that is then expressing itself as anger, because there is a habit, and that is a way of protection, because anger is “powerful.”  So, when I can see that the actual feeling I have is those tender feelings then the whole thing about the anger just transforms.  That’s why NVC helps me, because when I can look at the anger in the NVC language, usually I’m not feeling anger.  The actual feeling is the other one, and that’s difficult to identify because it’s embarrassing.  

VTC: Very often anger gives us an adrenaline rush, which makes us feel powerful.  And we like that, because underneath we’re scared; we feel vulnerable.  Like you said, we feel humiliated; we feel embarrassed; we feel hurt.  Anger can mask all of that.  So, it’s very helpful to identify what is really going on in my mind, what is the real issue.  That’s what I’m saying. “What is my button?  My pride is wounded because somebody saw through my trip and commented on it.  So why am I angry?  Why is that bothering me?” I need to own my trip.  And, if I have a trip and somebody comments on it, why am I upset at them?  It’s my trip. 

Audience: It’s not easy to get to what you’re saying, to get to that thought of “my trip.” It’s like people are calling me out for something.  To get to that thought, that kind of honesty, is not easy.  For me, NVC helps because it gives the steps to get there.  That’s why it’s helpful.  Venerable Semkye mentioned before that NVC is like thought training.  It actually flips the way I usually think, like giving me access to that kind of level. 

VTC: So, in this kind of situation where somebody’s calling you out and you’re getting angry, how would you use NVC? 

Audience: When that happens and I have the presence of mind, the first thing I do is ask, “Okay, which part of my body am I feeling right now?  Where is that?” Usually, I immediately go to “I’m anxious,” because I don’t know what exactly I’m feeling.  There’s some anxiety.  Once I do that, the energy cuts by half because I’m no longer focused outside; I’m focused inside.  Then the next step is, “This is really terribly uncomfortable, but it’s okay.  It’s okay that it’s uncomfortable, that my chest is congested.” Then, after I get through that, the third step is, “What am I saying to myself that’s causing this anxiety?  What kind of enemy image am I projecting that is causing this thing to come out—this fear, this anxiety, whatever?” If I can have the presence of mind to do these three, the anger doesn’t come up.  It just extinguishes like that.  That’s why NVC is helpful for me, because it gives me very specific steps to do. 

Audience: I’ve also had the problem of not being able to access all my feelings.  I learned that, but I didn’t learn it through NVC.  I learned it through actual proper meditation. I also got in trouble with meditation too, because I could exit-out a little bit, you know like suppress things actually.  But, one thing I learned, one thing that helped me, was doing a meditation where I just allowed myself to be aware.  When I got flooded with emotion, I went back to the breathing meditation.  So, I had calmness and clarity of the mind. I learned I could either express something or repress something, but there was a third choice of awareness. I learned it in a completely different context, but it also gave me steps, and it helped me.  A lot of it was just making time for myself, actually, to turn within. 

VTC: To check-in with yourself. 

Audience: Yes, to check-in and not be so busy running around to know that I needed to do that, to make the time and space to do that.  And that was a big part of it.  

VTC: We’re all going to find different ways to do things—whatever works for us.  Also, to have a variety of ways to deal with things, I’ve found that very helpful.  It’s important to have more than one technique, because there are different kinds of anger, different situations of anger.  Knowing a variety of ways to handle it is quite helpful.

It’s interesting, these four precepts.  

Contemplation points

Venerable Chodron continued the commentary on the bodhisattva ethical code. Spend time on each in light of the commentary given.

1. In what situations have you seen yourself act this way in the past or under what conditions might it be easy to act this way in the future (it might help to consider how you’ve seen this negativity in the world)? Consider some of the examples shared.
2. From which of the ten non-virtues is the precept helping you to restrain?
3. What are some of the exceptions to the precept and why?
4. Which of the six perfections is the precept eliminating obstacles to and how?
5. What are the antidotes that can be applied when you are tempted to act contrary to the precept?
6. Why is this precept so important to the bodhisattva path? How does breaking it harm yourself and others? How does keeping it benefit yourself and others?
7. Resolve to be mindful of the precept in your daily life.

Precepts covered this week:

To eliminate obstacles to the far-reaching practice of fortitude, abandon:

• Auxiliary Precept #19: Refusing to accept the apologies of others.
• Auxiliary Precept #20: Acting out thoughts of anger.