“Granted there are certain people to whom the most compassionate act is disengagement (so that they cannot harm themselves or others), but for the vast majority of sentient beings, compassion is simply kindness, tenderness and love.” – a friend, upon a forum, in relation to decision to ban another in a ‘no one is ever banned’ space.
Lord Buddha himself said, “A good friend who points out mistakes and imperfections and rebukes evil is to be respected as if he reveals a secret of hidden treasure.”
So how then does one determine the difference between ‘certain people who harm themselves or others’ and the ‘good friend who points out mistakes and imperfections and rebukes evil?’
Indeed, if one is set to the advanced vows, are not all sentient beings that good friend? Even a raggedy, harsh-worded, sharp and insistent dandelion? *grin*
Why then, this distinguishing, this discrimination, and speaking of ‘setting aside’ and ‘disengaging’? How is it ever justified but by self-cherishing?
Conquer the angry man by love.
Conquer the ill-natured man by goodness.
Conquer the miser with generosity.
Conquer the liar with truth.– The Dhammapada
Where is the love? Where is the goodness? Where is the generosity? Where is the truth? Or is it simply easier to say, ‘It is too hard. I will instead say simply this other is harmful and shun them’?
That is much easier, isn’t it? But is this practice in action? This is a question we both already know the answer to, isn’t it….?
The real question is — do you grit your teeth to admit it? Shall this self-cherishing, back-patting, reinforcement be an on-going thing, convince everyone around you so you can convince yourself? And will it continue with others? Forever and ever, amen? Be the recurring pattern by which anything too discomforting may be deflected?
Tell me, what benefit to all sentient beings lay in such a thing?
Can you find benefit in it? Do you even now?
Between ‘halls of shame’ and fingers of blame and the barrage of justification, I wonder, who, precisely, is being convinced?
The longer you blame others, the longer you blame yourself. The longer you blame yourself, the longer everyone around you, everyone you meet suffers.
I know that’s not your wish. Nor your intent. Nor your hope. Just as it isn’t mine. Just as it isn’t Ryder’s.
The difference between self-cherishing anger and mother’s anger is that mother’s anger is gone the moment the danger departs.
Are you angry, Richard? Better yet, do you truly think I am? Do you think I ever was? Perhaps you think so, hmm? Perhaps that is why you never write, engage, or seek communication and the path to common ground? Did I make that easier by saying I blocked you? Did you believe me? Was it easy to do so?
Is it unkind of me to ask such questions? Or is it unkind of you to refuse to answer them? What is unkind? Do you know? Perhaps unkind is intent and not perception? Do you know my intent, Richard? And if “yes”, how did you know without asking?
More interestingly, how do you manage to reconcile the woman you met in November with the Dandelion? Do you manage it? Or do you simply not think on it, finding her ‘harmful to herself and others’? *curious look*
Most interesting of all, have you ever pondered that perhaps the reason why you were told to ignore it all was so it could unfold, rather than so it might ‘go away’?
————————————-
(of course, the interesting thing in this, here, is how it mirrors another circumstance in eerie, odd ways, except in this one, there is no anger at all. the beauty of the lesson is intense.)