Doctrine to address or alleviate someone's sense of betrayal?

score:1

Accepted answer

The way I was trained, it would fall under one of the subcategories of "attachment". Probably "attachment to high ideals" or "attachment to high ethical standards".

Attachment to anything, including the highest ethical objects such as Justice, Fairness, Kindness, Honesty etc. is a source of frustration or even hatred towards those who violate those principles (in your eyes) and towards the world as the place where wrong things happen.

Attachment to ideals is your problem, your inner problem, its a kind of grasping to an idea your ego identifies with, to elevate itself at the expense of others.

Every time you have such attachment you are bound to get into situations that will be its mirror reflections. So the more you identify with and cultivate the sense of putting the ideals of loyalty, fairness, honesty etc. above all else, the more you are going to get betrayed. This is partially due to karma you're creating by being like that, and partially your mind being supersensitive to the topic it is obsessed about. The external problems will manifest proportionally to the degree of attachment.

The way I was taught, victim and villain are both responsible (albeit in a different sense), and the sooner victim stops blaming the world and starts taking responsibility for creating that particular karma by being attached to those particular ideas, the faster he or she can move beyond recreating the pattern, get done with this lesson and move to the next.

The way this was introduced to me was not "actually, it's your fault" but more like "hmm, there seem to be deeper reasons behind this problem, something the world is trying to tell you, having to do with the pattern you are stuck in, that likely perpetuated for generations in your family. You seem to have a strong tendency to idealize X and correspondingly to hate the Not-X, which makes you go in these circles, creating a certain kind of situations. This is one of them". Etc.

Of course, you should gently probe into their life and lives of parents, confirming your theories about their attitudes and attachments to the object you suspect this is coming from, before you can speak about any patterns.

If they are spiritually-inclined, you may find it more effective to talk about all this in terms of karma. If they are materialists, then "patterns you recreate" is a more neutral term. In either case, identifying and letting go of an attachment is what you are aiming at.

Upvote:1

The reasoning is along these lines and where the answer diverges that is due to self view and one then questions on whether it is appropriate to hold that view.

"Who hurt you? Did the head hairs, body hairs, the teeth, the nails, the skin.. did the earth element, the liquid element, the wind element, the fire element or the space element hurt you?"

"Did the intellect element hurt you?"

"No but the person who has these elements hurt me:("

"What do you think, bro: Do you regard form as the person?"

"Not rly."

"Do you regard feeling as the person?"

"Not rly."

"Do you regard perception as the person?"

"Not rly."

"Do you regard fabrications as the person?"

"Not rly."

"Do you regard consciousness as the person?"

"Not rly."

"What do you think, friend: Do you regard the person as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"Not really, no."

"What do you think: Do you regard the person as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness [taken together]?"

"Nah brah."

"Do you regard the person as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"Nope.."

"And so, Friend — when you can't pin down the person as a truth or reality — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, he/she betrayed & abused me:( '

"I guess not.."

In the end one can only think in terms of true elements and can delineate the elements of delusion as the corruption of intellect element which like the other elements can be grasped with wrong view to be personal for this or that being, corrupted knowledge can be shown to beget wrong resolve, wrong action etc

So one breaks this idea of a person being a true element and likewise with the idea of the self who got abused.

Upvote:1

From SN 36.21 (Bodhi translation - quoted below), we find that assault from others (also translated as "harsh treatment" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and "adverse behavior" by Nyanaponika Thera) is differentiated from kamma, as a cause of unpleasant experiences. This means that assault or harsh treatment of others upon us is not caused by our past kamma.

“Master Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gotama say about this?”

“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from bile disorders: that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.

“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders … originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

As you have rightly quoted from the Dhammapada (quoted below), the mind precedes mental states. If we feel hatred (or hostility or even betrayal or a sense of being unjustly treated) based on the actions of other people, then the real fault is on our part for not stilling the hatred in our minds, and seeking to settle the quarrel or injustice.

  1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

  2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

  3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

  4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

  5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

  6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

From SN 7.2 (quoted below), we find the Buddha himself setting the example for the above principle. He also gives the example of "returning back" harsh treatment back to the giver by not responding back with harsh treatment, which incidentally answers your question on "is there a way to paraphrase or explain that principle to a modern non-Buddhist audience?".

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then the brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the presence of the Blessed One. Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: "What do you think, brahman: Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as guests?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to me as guests."

"And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies?"

"Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies."

"And if they don't accept them, to whom do those foods belong?"

"If they don't accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine."

"In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.

"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours."

"The king together with his court know this of Master Gotama — 'Gotama the contemplative is an arahant' — and yet still Master Gotama gets angry."

[The Buddha:]

Whence is there anger
for one free from anger,
tamed,
living in tune —
one released through right knowing,
calmed
& Such.

You make things worse
when you flare up
at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up
at someone who's angry
wins a battle
hard to win.

You live for the good of both
— your own, the other's —
when, knowing the other's provoked,
you mindfully grow calm.

When you work the cure of both
— your own, the other's —
those who think you a fool
know nothing of Dhamma.

When this was said, the brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja said to the Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. Let me obtain the going forth in Master Gotama's presence, let me obtain admission."

From Sutta Nipata 4.11 (quoted below), we trace back harsh treatment, quarrels, betrayal etc. back to craving and clinging i.e. the second noble truth. This applies to both the giver of, and responder to, harsh treatment, quarrels, betrayal etc.

"From what arise contentions and disputes, lamentations and sorrows, along with selfishness and conceit, and arrogance along with slander? From where do these various things arise? Come tell me this."

"From being too endeared (to objects and persons) arise contentions and disputes, lamentations and sorrows along with avarice, selfishness and conceit, arrogance and slander. Contentions and disputes are linked with selfishness, and slander is born of contention."

More post

Search Posts

Related post