Buddhist

[emergent]

I am Buddhist, and have been since the very beginning of my r/s with my uBPDw more than 15 years ago. To me, this has meant (among much else) a lot of work shedding ego and ego-serving behaviours.

For many years I considered my wife a big help on my spriritual path, since without something to work on, no work gets done. Now, I am beginning to question my definition of compassion up to now, as well as how much "self" is necessary and beneficial. This has been a year of revelations and inner revolutions for me, hence my username here: emergent. Universal compassion has to include me. If I am to help others, I must exist and be strong and relatively influential.

Just wondering, are there any other Buddhist practitioners out there? How do you reconcile this path of egolessness with setting personal boundaries and standing up for what you need?

[virginiawoolf]

Hi Emergent,

While I don't call myself Buddhist, I do have a meditation practice and have been immersing myself in Buddhist teachings, readings, retreats, classes, etc. for several years. My experience in this area has helped me immeasurably in so many areas of my life.

I have, however, become aware of a bit of a slippery slope that exists between the strength/compassion/stability/selflessness that my practice brings to me and my co-dependent dependencies in my relationship with uBPDbf. I'm having trouble articulating it precisely, but I sometimes find that I perhaps become "too" giving or, alternatively, feel emotionally invincible in a way which has led me to allowed me take on too much, with respect to my uBPDbf, including episodes of cruelty/mistreatment. What I realize is that just because I'm at a place where I can "take it," does not mean that it is good for him or good for the relationship in the long term.

I think developing an awareness of this tendency is very important. It is helpful to look clearly and honestly at the situation and ask: who are these behaviors really serving? And a Buddhism/meditation, can help you develop precisely the clarity of vision that is helpful here.

Some fellow practitioners introduced me to the idea of "idiot compassion" (vs. compassion). Might be helpful to read about this.

[emergent]

feel emotionally invincible in a way which has led me to allowed me take on too much

This is perfectly articulated. There's a sense that there's no benefit in being a punching bag, even if it doesn't hurt, emotionally, on the spot.

In spite of my many years of practice, it still hurts like mad sometimes. But I have definitely built up emotional resistance, and I have trouble finding the line of what is tolerable. I can tolerate a LOT.

[emergent]

Chögyam Trungpa must have been a wonderful teacher; I have read several of his books and find his teachings to be profound and simple at the same time. He's the one to have coined the phrase "idiot compassion".

I am not sure that's what's going on here. I'm not really focused on my own comfort level, saying I can't stand it if she suffers so I'd better indulge her and stick around while she rages. It's more like, she's got all this to let out and since either way I know I'll be alright, she can use me as a punching bag.

[virginiawoolf]

It's more like, she's got all this to let out and since either way I know I'll be alright, she can use me as a punching bag.

Yes! This is exactly how I frequently found myself feeling about uBPD(x)bf.

I like this description of Idiot Compassion by Pema Chödrön, which I just came across:

www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/23zdhk/idiot_compassion_interview_with_pema_ch%C3%B6dr%C3%B6n/

It seems to fit very well with issues of boundaries that are discussed on this board. She also describes the "benefit to self" in a way that's a bit more subtle/nuanced. She describes "trying to get away from your feeling of 'I can't bear to see them suffering' " (vs. proactively trying to improve your own comfort level).

I have found that this is true for me.

I sometimes also think of the Christian tenet of "turning the other cheek" which is a concept that still grips me on some subconscious level, but which I'd, frankly, like to release myself from -- for the reasons Pema Chodron and Chögyam Trungpa mention when they talk about Idiot Compassion... .and other reasons as well. 

There's also another thing -- going down a bit of a separate path, which may not apply to you at all. In my case, I'm starting to realize that perhaps there is a bit more even than the minimization of short term discomfort. Like you, I can tolerate a LOT -- particularly when it comes to somebody else's rages and verbal abuse. I've asked myself recently how/why this is. I think it may be connected to physical/emotional abuse I experienced growing up. Being an emotional punching bag is, for better or worse, familiar territory. When I observe myself closely enough I realize that on some strange level I may find something comforting/soothing in the intensity and familiarity. I think the clarity that meditation brings me is helping me to see this in myself.

Maybe something to think about, though I'm not sure if it will help: how do you FEEL during her rages (when you stick around)? And how do you feel an hour/a day/a week later. How would she feel an hour/a day/a week later if you were to disconnect yourself during those times vs. how she feels when you stay?

[emergent]

In the comments section of that link, someone brings up the Jataka tale about the tigress, where a previous incarnation of the Buddha gives his life to feed a hungry tigress. It was one of the major steps, as the legend goes, to his awakening in a future life. I often think of this parable, even though I don't believe it's possible to know whether or how much it contributed to enlightenment. There are people willing to give their lives to help others, that's for sure.

I'm realizing (as part of this emerging I've mentioned) that in my situation, it's just not helpful to give ever more of myself. The tigress here is not going to be saved by me if I continue to give and give and give (or rather, take and take and take what she throws). At least not in the way I have been. There is no way to satisfy her.

I have never been abused, unless this is abuse. There was nothing familiar to me about this treatment before uBPDw, as I grew up in a peaceful household. My mother was a psychologist (and so am I, by training), and issues were dealt with I daresay appropriately, even if we had a lot of them... .In spite of being highly sensitive, there are many reasons that I am emotionally resilient and I think this is one of them. It is also my mother who delicately - and only when I asked for her opinion - clued me in to the probability of uBPDw having a personality disorder. I resisted it for a long time, even though with my education, I should have known.

When she rages, I feel a whole range of things. Sometimes numb and/or like you said, invincible. Sometimes stuck, like there's no escape and I need to escape. Hurt by the things she says, sometimes to the point of feeling broken, like a plate smashed against a wall. Guilty because some of the things she says are true. A Buddhist teaching I had (can't remember if it was a lama or a book or something else) was that there is always an element of truth in the reproaches we get from others. Also, like I need to tread extremely carefully so as not to make the rage worse. Almost obsessed with trying to figure out what steps to take, how to speak to her or whether to stay silent, how my body should communicate, where to go in the room, etc. in a way that will appease the situation. Sometimes it's like a game, probably the most challenging one I've ever played. I very, very rarely win it.

It can hurt for an hour, but a day later I am usually OK. There have been times when it took longer. I have my practice, and many other positive things in my life that allow me to stay afloat and even thrive in spite of this. Generally I am a happy and optimistic person, so in the after-rage period, I tend to feel good.

If I disconnected, I can only guess at what she would feel. Anger, for sure, but that's true if I stay, too. Later on, I can imagine she'd have a deep grudge against me that would make things permanently worse. Or on the other hand, it is possible that since I didn't allow the rage to get to the level and duration it would have otherwise, maybe she would have a lighter load and feel better. But I'm afraid that's wishful thinking.

[Lucky Jim]

I have never been abused, unless this is abuse.

Hey emergent, In my view, rage is a form of abuse.  That you have the strength to withstand a lot does not make it OK, in my book.  You write:

It can hurt for an hour, but a day later I am usually OK. There have been times when it took longer. I have my practice, and many other positive things in my life that allow me to stay afloat and even thrive in spite of this.

Why should you have to live your life "in spite of this" even if you are OK a day later?  Why should you be, as you describe, a "punching bag"?  I doubt Buddha would approve of this practice.

I have reached a point of self-acceptance that perhaps, as a Buddhist, you will find helpful.  I care enough about myself that I am no longer willing to be the object of anyone's abuse.  That's my personal boundary.

LuckyJim

[eeks]

I am not a Buddhist, but there are some modern psychotherapists who are dealing with pretty much this issue in their books and writings, integrating the Western developmental (ego) view with the Eastern mindfulness (egoless) view, who I have enjoyed reading.  John Welwood, Bruce Tift, Matt Licata.  Also a Youtube video by Miles Neale called "Spiritual Bypassing" where he explains the challenges pretty well, of the yoga and meditation practitioners who are his clients.

Among other things, John Welwood explains that because Western people are disconnected by virtue of our culture, we don't have the grounding in our own bodies, emotions, and family/community that the societies that gave rise to Buddhism did.  So (in my paraphrase) it's hard to get rid of the ego when it was never formed properly in the first place.

[HappyNihilist]

I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but I've always loved Buddhism and try to incorporate much of it into my life. I feel like Buddhism "fits" me far better than any other spiritual practice. I also supplement my Buddhist readings and practice with Stoicism and existentialism.

I'm a big fan of ego death and egolessness. I strive for it, and am occasionally even successful.

But I do understand where there might be a perceived conflict between egolessness and self-protection.

The point of egolessness is to realize our true nature, to cast off our unproductive perceptions of the world and ourselves, and to feel a oneness with and compassion for our fellow beings. However, that doesn't mean that we don't also deserve compassion and dignity. We are human beings, too, and therefore inherently worthy of that.

The Buddha himself said, "You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection."

Part of loving ourselves is taking care of ourselves. Good boundaries are vital to taking care of ourselves. We can be compassionate and accepting of others while at the same time being compassionate and good to ourselves.

You're absolutely right, emergent - universal compassion has to include you. 

[Blimblam]

Eeks brings up a good point which is Buddhism is rooted in an entirely different culture than the west so much will be lost in translation so to speak.  For example the eastern concept of the ego is very different than the wests.  In Hindu it is "ahamkara," they speak of which translates to ego doing.  It is a verb not a noun.  That difference has huge implications and changes everything.

[eeks]

Eeks brings up a good point which is Buddhism is rooted in an entirely different culture than the west so much will be lost in translation so to speak.  For example the eastern concept of the ego is very different than the wests.  In Hindu it is "ahamkara," they speak of which translates to ego doing.  It is a verb not a noun.  That difference has huge implications and changes everything.

"Ego doing"?  I didn't know that.  So does that mean... .everybody has an ego, having one is not a problem, it's when you allow the ego to dictate your actions that you have problems?  Because if so, that would make a lot of sense to me.  

Take the emotion of anger.  I used to think I didn't get angry (my mother is one of those people who equates angry feelings with angry actions, and because the latter are bad the former must be useless.  But I cried a lot, I was one of those.)  One day several years ago I noticed, "Hey, I can feel angry, and nothing bad happens.  I'm not going to take action based on this feeling, but if I did, it would be totally separate from the feeling."

[eeks]

The Buddha himself said, "You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection."

The Buddha... .kinda sorta said that, in reverse.

www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/you-yourself-as-much-as-anybody-in-the-entire-universe-deserve-your-love-and-affection/

[Grey Kitty]

I have had regular meditation practice at some points in my life and not others. I've done some vipassana (mindfulness) retreats with Western teachers who learned mostly in Burma, or from teachers from Burma. Those retreats really helped me deal better with my wife when she was being verbally/emotionally abusive. (Which is what your wife sounds like)

I found a few things upon coming back after my retreats... .

One was that I was much more thoughtful before I spoke, and not prone to being invalidating.

Another was that I was very aware that the abusive behavior was hurting me, and that I might need to leave my marriage to protect myself... .despite still loving my wife very much. (This gave me more resolve to protect myself from the abusive behavior... .which I was able to do without having to leave my marriage)

And the last one was that I was feeling a lot more open to compassion for my wife, which meant that when she started with something angry/abusive/hurtful, I was more often able to see that she was hurting herself, and validate what she was feeling, instead of taking her attack on me personally.

I don't claim to be a Buddhist scholar... .but I do feel that the practices promoted here on the Staying Board are very consistent with the sort of skillful living described in the Buddhist teachings I'm familiar with.

[HappyNihilist]

The Buddha himself said, "You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection."

The Buddha... .kinda sorta said that, in reverse.

www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/you-yourself-as-much-as-anybody-in-the-entire-universe-deserve-your-love-and-affection/

Mea culpa for misattributing the quote. The article you linked is very interesting - the explanation given for the "reversal" of the quote is that it was done for a Western audience, which is filled with self-hatred that the Eastern concept didn't account for. The overall point of the original Buddha quote is that, of course you have loving-kindness for yourself, so you should have it for others, as well. But the idea of self-compassion is more foreign in Western culture, so the original Buddha quote was reframed to say, of course you have loving-kindness for others, so you should have it for yourself, too.

It's a sad indication that Western culture is as saturated with self-hatred (or just lack of self-compassion) that such a reframing was necessary.

This is insightful excerpt from the Buddha's Samyutta Nikaya (trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu) that I feel touches on the very issue of how to take care of oneself while still being compassionate towards others--

"Monks, the establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' The establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself.

"And how do you watch after others when watching after yourself? Through cultivating [the practice of mindfulness], through developing it, through pursuing it. This is how you watch after others when watching after yourself.

"And how do you watch after yourself when watching after others? Through endurance, through harmlessness, through a mind of goodwill, and through sympathy. This is how you watch after yourself when watching after others."

[Lucky Jim]

The Buddha himself said, "You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection."

Thanks, HN, for finding that quotation from the Buddha, who articulates exactly what I was attempting to express.  From this premise, that you yourself deserve your own love and affection, many positive changes can flow, in my view.

LuckyJim

[Blimblam]

Eeks brings up a good point which is Buddhism is rooted in an entirely different culture than the west so much will be lost in translation so to speak.  For example the eastern concept of the ego is very different than the wests.  In Hindu it is "ahamkara," they speak of which translates to ego doing.  It is a verb not a noun.  That difference has huge implications and changes everything.

"Ego doing"?  I didn't know that.  So does that mean... .everybody has an ego, having one is not a problem, it's when you allow the ego to dictate your actions that you have problems?  Because if so, that would make a lot of sense to me.  

Take the emotion of anger.  I used to think I didn't get angry (my mother is one of those people who equates angry feelings with angry actions, and because the latter are bad the former must be useless.  But I cried a lot, I was one of those.)  One day several years ago I noticed, "Hey, I can feel angry, and nothing bad happens.  I'm not going to take action based on this feeling, but if I did, it would be totally separate from the feeling."

The ego can cause problems to avoid feeling pain then split those problems as the fault as someone else.  But sometimes we have problems because our "true self," is seeking a situation to become aware of what the ego is hiding from.

To put it in a western frame in depth knowledge of ego defence mechanisms is a good start to understaning what the ego is doing. 

[emergent]

Good discussion here. Thank you all for your input. Some great resources to check into, eeks. I will set aside some time to look into those.

I do find an enormous amount of benefit from my practice for handling interactions with BPDw more skillfully. GreyKitty, the awareness and compassion you talk about are incontrovertible results of my practice, too, and I don't know what I'd do without them. The trouble I have is mostly related to this protecting myself - what self?

Hinduism and Buddhism have one major difference: In Hindu religions the soul (atman) is sought out and hopefully aligned/unified with the divine or universal (brahman). In Buddhism, the notion of a truly existent, absolute soul is systematically refuted. I am Buddhist, and I do not believe that a soul is there to be found on an absolute level. So what am I protecting?

[Grey Kitty]

My take on Buddhism is that it is completely focused on practical things we can do here on earth, and on how to do things on earth so that living her works better. Along these lines, my teachers have said that the Buddha always refused to answer questions on things like the nature of souls or existence of God.

However I've never heard that Buddhism actively denied the existence of a soul, even though it does not describe its nature.

There is a great deal of discussion of what the "self" actually is, and much of the practice is about realizing that most everything you identify with isn't actually part of your core self. I've not studied this aspect in much depth.

[emergent]

Yes, the Buddha refused to answer questions about God and the stuff souls are made of. But he did categorically refute the absolute existence of a soul. Anatman (no soul or no self) is one of the three marks of existence in all Buddhist thought, along with anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (dis-ease or suffering or frustration). These are characteristics of every living thing.

From a Buddhist perspective, there are two levels of reality: the relative and the absolute. The relative level of reality is the one in which all the phenomena of the world exist and interact with each other following the law of karma or cause and effect. This is one level of truth. But upon analysis, there is not a single entity that exists absolutely, from its own side. Where is this thing called flower? In the petals, the stem, the roots? In the totality of these components? If so, if all the components need to be there to call it a flower, what happens when a petal falls off; is there still a flower? This can be applied to all phenomena and all phenomena can be found not to exist on an absolute level.

In Hindu religions, the goal of many practices is to go deeper and deeper inside, to find the true self and realize its unity with the absolute, which is considered the only thing that is real. It's not that this is a bad thing in Buddhism, only that when you get past all the outer layers, finding each to be superficial and untenable, you find that the centre is insubstantial, comprised only of more superficiality and untenability. The soul or atman is just not there.

The cause of all our suffering is identification with things that don't actually exist, and most importantly with our own mind. Our thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes are no more "us" than a flower petal is "flower". And this is where my difficulty lies. Just going with what satifies my untenable, insubstantial emotions feels so wrong, not just in the sense that I feel guilty or selfish, but it seems actually counterproductive and like I'm missing the point.

[Grey Kitty]

Thank you for that explanation. I've learned most of my Buddhism through practice with some bits of more analytical study... .and my practice (and thus study) hasn't gone deeply into that area yet, as I said.

I've not got my life in a place where I am choosing to schedule another long retreat for myself until perhaps fall... .and I do feel like my formal practice has stagnated for a while now. It will be really interesting to see where my next 7~10 day retreat takes me. Perhaps into anatman  Or maybe smiling is not appropriate--very little of the progress I've made in other aspects of Buddhism has been fun and easy.

[Lucky Jim]

The trouble I have is mostly related to this protecting myself . . .  I am Buddhist, and I do not believe that a soul is there to be found on an absolute level. So what am I protecting?

Hey emergent, That sounds more like the philosophy of a masochist than that of a Buddhist.  I doubt the Buddha would have allowed himself to be a "punching bag," as you describe.

Like you, I was able to withstand a lot during a 16-year marriage to a pwBPD.  Yet at the end of the day, I determined that continuing down a path of self-destruction was no help to anyone, particularly my children.  What lesson was I imparting to them?  That it is OK to allow someone to treat you like a doormat?  I am on a different path now.

LuckyJim

[emergent]

Thank you, LuckyJim. You're very frank, and I appreciate that. It drives reality home when I think about my kids. You've also helped me to remember something important about the Buddhist culture I am steeped in.

You say you doubt the Buddha would have put up with mistreatment. As mentioned early on in this thread, legend has it that the Buddha (in a previous incarnation) gave up his life freely to feed a hungy tigress. I'd say that's more masochistic than being a doormat. This is the kind of role model Buddhists are given and encouraged to emulate. I don't think it's so different from Jesus, but I don't know very much about Christianity.

In Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism (I practice Vajrayana), we also have what is known as bodhisattvas, kind of like saints. They are represented in many ways and perhaps you have heard of or seen Chenrezig (aka Avalokiteshvara), the 1000-armed bodhisattva of compassion who needs that many arms to respond to the suffering masses. There are these peaceful ones, but there are wrathful ones, too. I don't keep images of them around, as I have never really seen the need or fully comprehended all they represent. These are depicted as very gory, terrifying really, weilding weapons, holding things like skull-cups full of blood, wearing garlands of skulls around their necks, and I won't describe their most horrible attributes... .The point is that these beings need to use wrathful means to counter so-called evil forces that cannot be dealt with peacefully. The intention is still one of compassion, but the means are adapted to the situation at hand.

I think I may need to shift my focus toward these beings.

[emergent]

GreyKitty, I'm sorry to hear the path has been difficult for you. But when you can, smile, smile away! It becomes necessary at some point. Human nature is just so absurd. We all want to be happy, and yet we do everything to make ourselves miserable. Ha!

I've known quite a few Tibetan lamas and they all (or almost all) have a great sense of humour.

[Lucky Jim]

Hello again, emergent,

Needless to say, I know very little about Buddhism and appreciate that you are willing to consider my ideas notwithstanding my dearth of knowledge on this subject.

I find your descriptions of the bohisattvas quite compelling, particularly the wrathful ones:

The point is that these beings need to use wrathful means to counter so-called evil forces that cannot be dealt with peacefully. The intention is still one of compassion, but the means are adapted to the situation at hand.

Perhaps you can employ these beings as mentors for your growth, or borrow some bohdisattva energy as you "emerge."

LuckyJim

[Grey Kitty]

My practice has been with Western Theravāda teachers, who learned mostly from traditions and masters out of Burma and Thailand. I've found their teachings and practice to work well for me; I've not looked much into Mahayana or Vajrayana practices for comparison... .other than discovering that I find at least some Zen teachers to be annoyingly pedantic.

GreyKitty, I'm sorry to hear the path has been difficult for you. But when you can, smile, smile away! It becomes necessary at some point. Human nature is just so absurd. We all want to be happy, and yet we do everything to make ourselves miserable. Ha!

I've known quite a few Tibetan lamas and they all (or almost all) have a great sense of humour.

Oh, I have found plenty of humorous and joyful things in my practice. I felt like the time I was learning the most from my practice was when I went on retreat a few weeks after my wife cheated on me five years ago. I had a lot of hurt to experience, and it came up in my meditations. All my teachers have had a sense of humor... .and I find that when I finally notice something my mind is doing on retreat, I crack myself up! (and try to do it silently!)

(I go light with my sense of humor here--it can get lost in text too easily)

My teacher has said a few times that we practice to build our capacity to keep our hearts open to painful things. Since you cannot close the heart to pain and open it to joy at the same time, if you want to experience joy, you have to be able to risk pain, the other option being closing down and not experiencing either.

[emergent]

Thanks for sharing this, GreyKitty.

Meditation is also a place where difficult emotions come up for me. I have been through phases where meditation brought me not only to tears, but to all the physical expression of emotions I had in regards to my relationship with BPDw. My head would spin, I'd become really nauseated, hyperventilating, losing my balance and landing on my hands where I needed to stay until all went back to normal. This kept happening for some time. I hope the people reading this will keep an open mind and not think badly of meditation in general. I have been meditating for 18 years and this is a rare occurrence isolated in time. It happened to me because I was ready to face it. I knew exactly what it was about and it allowed me to see things more clearly. I was also guided through it.

It's important to me to see this kind of thing without judgement, to observe from the outside all while living it fully. When I can do that, I can't help but smile. It is actually a positive thing in the end, gaining me perspective and understanding.

I am very open with BPDw and I told her about this at an opportune time. She had surprisingly little to say about it, besides asking what I was hoping for by telling her. She also stated as if it were a fact that I hate her and want her to feel guilty. There is probably some amount of truth in that, at least that I'd like her to recognize the consequences of her actions. But I wish we'd been able to talk about my feelings.

[emergent]

Thought you all might be interested in an article I just read along the lines of this thread. www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2008/11/buddhism-and-abuse-or-loving-the-enemy.html