Category Archives: Relationships

Our relationships

Following along in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s book, The Buddha’s Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony, we move our focus now from intentional communities to “natural” communities. These start with family and extend outward to all the other relationships in our lives.

The Sigalovada Sutta (quoted below) is the most detailed outline in the Pali canon for how we can interact with everyone in a beneficial way, from our nearest and dearest to the random encounter. On my home page, the tab labeled “Relationships” provides a longer analysis of the main points of the sutta. A full translation can be found here:

And how, young man, does the noble disciple protect the six directions? These six things are to be regarded as the six directions. The east denotes mother and father. The south denotes teachers. The west denotes wife and children. The north denotes friends and companions. The nadir denotes servants, workers, and helpers. The zenith denotes ascetics and brahmins.

There are five ways in which a son should minister to his mother and father as the eastern direction. [He should think:] ‘Having been supported by them, I will support them. I will perform their duties for them. I will keep up the family tradition. I will be worthy of my heritage. After my parents’ deaths I will distribute gifts on their behalf.’ And there are five ways in which the parents, so ministered to by their son as the eastern direction, will reciprocate: they will restrain him from evil, support him in doing good, teach him some skill, find him a suitable wife, and, in due time, hand over his inheritance to him. In this way the eastern direction is covered, making it secure and free from peril. (from DN 31, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

The eastern direction is where the sun rises, everywhere on earth, so by analogy, all of our lives begin from and with our parents. They are our first relationships, for better or worse. We can’t be sure, but it is likely that in the Buddha’s time and place, extended families generally stayed geographically and emotionally closer than many families do today. This may complicate the instructions, but doesn’t invalidate them.

Also please note that in ancient India, when women married they joined their husbands’ families, leaving their own behind. In most modern cultures, this is not the case, so we have to adjust our understanding of the sutta to make it useful to ourselves.

We have responsibilities to our parents and they have responsibilities to us. It is easy to visualize ideal parents and children and also dysfunctional ones. We each only have to deal with the parents we’ve got. If it happens that the parental figures in our lives are not our biological parents, the same responsibilities apply. Generally, we look after each other as appropriate at different times. Safety, security, and nourishment are sought on childrens’ behalf by parents in the early years. Often as parents age, responsibilities are shared, and then (at least partly) assumed by the children if the parents live into old age.

Respect, kindness, and compassion are what children owe parents, and parents owe children. We try to live in a way that is both truthful and harmonious, seeking growth and comfort for ourselves and each other.

Leave a comment

Filed under Compassion, Friendships, General, Precepts, Relationships

Reviewing ourselves

In the monastic community, giving and accepting criticism of each others’ behavior is a standard part of the training. In lay life we tend not to welcome any indication that we or our views are not perfect. However, we rarely notice our own flaws, even when they are obvious to others. In MN 15, Ven. Mogallana, one of the Buddha’s most senior disciples, gives a long description of the characteristics of people who do and don’t accept correction from others.

A small part of the sutta goes like this (Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation):

Now, friends, a monk should review himself thus: (1) ‘Do I have evil desires and am I dominated by evil desires?’ If, when he reviews himself, he know: ‘I have evil desires, I am dominated by evil desires,’ then he should make an effort to abandon those evil unwholesome qualities. But if, when he reviews himself, he knows: ‘I have no evil desires, I am not dominated by evil desires,’ then he can abide happy and glad, training day and night in wholesome qualities.

“Having evil desires” is the first of sixteen qualities that Ven. Mogallana lists as characteristic of a monk who will not accept criticism. Some of the others are:

2. Praising oneself and disparaging others.
3. Being angry.
5. Being stubborn.
7. When reproved, resisting the reprover.
8. When reproved, denigrating the reprover.
10. When reproved, prevaricating [evading], leading the talk aside [changing the subject], showing anger, hate, and bitterness.
12. Being contemptuous and insolent.
16. Adhering to his own view, holding to it tenaciously.

We probably recognize some or all of these strategies used by people who can’t bear to be corrected or shown any indication that they may be behaving unwisely. Unfortunately, in our public life, we often see senior figures deploying these tactics.

If we agree that accepting correction from others can be a pathway to spiritual and psychological growth, then we might be willing to review our own reactions to those who challenge us. Can we listen to others who disagree with our positions? Do we bristle at any suggestion that our view is incorrect? Do we immediately doubt the integrity or intelligence of the questioner? Does criticism make us dig in to our position deeper than before?

We all have a profound instinct for self-preservation. At one time in human history this quality protected us from real, physical dangers, so in an evolutionary sense, it’s essential. However, now that we don’t live in savannahs populated by wild animals, the instinct has morphed into (sometimes hyper-) sensitivity to “ego threats”. If someone expresses an opinion different from or opposite to our own, what is being threatened? If someone points out that we’ve inadvertently caused harm or inconvenience to someone else, why do we sometimes react as if there is danger?

This is a specific situation in which mindfulness can lead to understanding. When feelings of resistance rise up, can we look inside and observe our reaction? Can we wait, reflect, feel the physical sensations involved, and calm ourselves enough to listen to what’s actually being said? Can we consider another point of view?


Filed under Anger, Causes and results, Dukkha, Friendships, Patience, Relationships, Speech

Blanket apologies

Apologizing and accepting apologies is an essential activity within communities if they are to be harmonious, yet it is often hard to find the best way to handle the process. If we’ve hurt someone and know it, we can apologize in private, being open to whatever conversation happens subsequently. Sometimes there’s more than one thing to be sorry for and more than a few people taking sides. For such cases within the monastic sangha, the Buddha described a confession/apology/forgiveness strategy called “covering over with grass”.  Here’s how it works:

…When they [the disputing monks] have met together, a wise monk among the monks who side together on the one side should rise from his seat, and after arranging his robe on one shoulder, he should raise his hands, palms together, and call for an enactment of the Sangha thus: ‘Let the venerable Sangha hear me. When we took to quarreling and brawling and were deep in disputes, we said and did many things improper for an ascetic. If it is approved by the Sangha, then for the good of these venerable ones and for my own good, in the midst of the Sangha I shall confess, by the method called ‘covering over with grass,’ any offenses of these venerable ones and any offenses of my own, except for those which call for serious censure and those connected with the laity.’

Then a wise monk among the monks who side together on the other part should rise from his seat…[and he says the same words]. (from MN 104, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

“Covering over with grass” can’t be used for serious offenses, for which the Buddha’s dispensation names specific remedies. But for re-starting relations after many people have said regrettable things, it can work.

In the Jewish tradition, before or on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), adherents are encouraged to apologize to others and ask for forgiveness, in order to start the new year with a “clean slate”. One way to do this is simply to address another person in our life, with or without something specific to apologize for, and say, “If I’ve done anything that hurt or offended you in the past year, please forgive me.” We could also say something like, “Any hurt or offense you have caused me in the past year is forgiven.” It’s amazing how effective this is in helping us recognize that we inflict niggling hurts on each other, often without intending to, and that all of us need to forgive and be forgiven on a regular basis.


Leave a comment

Filed under Compassion, Friendships, Relationships, Speech

Conflict resolution

When it comes to conflict resolution, there are many things to consider, and the Buddha had a lot to say about the process. Most of his examples are set within the monastic community, but the concepts can be widely applied.

It seems to me that the first question is whether anyone is listening. Are we listening? Is the other person? If either answer is no, then we would do well to back off and hope that either the person in question will self-correct, or that an opportunity for honest discussion will appear later. Within the monastic community, there is an explicit obligation to observe and correct each other, which is a better starting point than most of us have.

While you are training in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, some monk might commit an offense or a transgression. Now, monks, you should not hurry to reprove him; rather, the person should be examined thus: ‘I shall not be troubled and the other person will not be hurt; for the other person is not given to anger and resentment, he is not firmly attached to his view and he relinquishes easily, and I can make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.’ If such occurs to you, monks, it is proper to speak. (from MN 103, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

The sutta quoted above provides a list of conditions for correcting others. In brief, we can ask ourselves:

  1. Will bringing up this topic upset me?
  2. Will it hurt the other person?
  3. Is the transgressor generally angry and resentful?
  4. Is she known to be stubborn and reluctant to change her mind when given new information?
  5. If we point out what we perceive as unwholesome behavior, is the person likely to appreciate it, as helping them to become more aware?

It’s unlikely that these conditions would apply if we felt directly attacked, but we often observe people doing things that unwittingly hurt others or themselves. There’s a sliding scale of friendship that will be an indicator of whether we can speak or not. Those we are closest to will most likely be the ones who will hear us. Mere acquaintance does not give us leave to correct others.

As an example, there’s a member of our local club who is difficult but means well (think autistic spectrum). Many people simply avoid contact as much as possible, but a few of us feel confident enough that he knows we accept him to advise him on how to get along better. These “corrections” are not always welcomed, but if they are offered as friendly advice rather than exasperated ejaculations, they are not resisted, and over time I’ve seen them have some beneficial effect. If we speak to others kindly, they are much more willing to listen.

There are many situations in which we think someone is doing something negative but we just have to hold our peace. We can’t fix the world, but we can look for opportunities to help others reduce their suffering. AND we can make ourselves “easy to admonish”; we can invite our friends to correct us if they think we’re going astray.

Leave a comment

Filed under Causes and results, Compassion, Friendships, Relationships

How to change

There is a well-loved verse from the Buddha’s teaching. It can be found in the Dhammapada (#5) and also in MN 128.

(translated by Gil Fronsdal)
Hatred never ends through hatred.
By non-hate alone does it end.
This is an ancient truth.

(translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)
For in this world enmity is never
allayed by enmity.
It is allayed by non-hatred:
that is the fixed and ageless law.

I offer two translations in case one or the other is easier for you to contemplate.

Many years ago, in a work setting, a trainer asked the question: “How would it feel to completely accept the person who most annoys you?”  It took me a minute to realize that in order to know how it would feel, I’d have to actually accept my difficult person. What would that feel like? It was possible as a thought experiment; I felt my heart release. These days it’s a question I ask myself when that grating sensation of wanting someone to behave differently comes up. To actually accept someone fully means to acknowledge that they are basing their actions and words on their own experiences, fears, priorities, habits, delusions and all the rest, which are different from mine. It would mean saying yes to both their good qualities and their bad ones (everyone has both), and perhaps feeling compassion for their internal discomfort.

In a recent conversation with another person who cares for those in the last period of life, I said that I thought the good deaths were the ones in which love was present, regardless of the physical realities. My friend said that he thought acceptance was the most important thing. We agreed that acceptance leads to love and love leads to acceptance, so we were saying the same thing with different words.

In another conversation, a friend related strongly to the idea of learning to relax, to let go of how we should be, to understand that perfection is an illusion and that all we have to work with is what’s happening right now.

For me, these three things – acceptance, love, and letting go – are the same movement of the heart. They describe a release of clinging, a return to our natural inclination to love and protect others. Perhaps it’s a paradox, but when we really let go of our clinging, even for a moment, that soft, empty space is what we call love – or non-hatred. It’s not nothing. It is a spaciousness that allows others to be as they are without our interference.

A correlation to the verse above may be that no one ever changed in the intended way through punishment; only love brings about change in living beings. This is something we can prove in our own relationships, by thoroughly accepting ourselves and others and seeing what happens next.


Filed under Anger, Causes and results, Compassion, Dhammapada, General, Relationships


Since communities, whether large or small, are composed of human beings, they are inevitably exposed to tensions caused by human frailties. The innate propensity for self-aggrandizement, craving for personal benefits, self-righteousness, and attachment to personal opinions can lead to factionalism and disputes and even split the community into fragments. (From introduction to chapter “Disputes” in The Buddha’s Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

This is a succinct re-statement of the Buddha’s first truth, the truth of dukkha. We keep hoping that we can arrange our lives so that we are not bothered by troublesome (to us) people, but inevitably, we fail. The first sutta quoted in the “Disputes” chapter is DN 21 and concerns the question “why?”.  In it, Sakka, ruler of the devas (gods), asks the Buddha: “Beings wish to live without hate, hostility, or enmity; they wish to live in peace. Yet they live in hate, harming one another, hostile, and as enemies. By what fetters are they bound, sir, that they live in such a way?”

The Buddha responds: “Ruler of the devas, it is the bonds of envy and miserliness that bind beings so that, although they wish to live without hate, hostility, or enmity, and to live in peace, yet they live in hate, harming one another, hostile, and as enemies.”

Sakka digs deeper and asks what gives rise to  envy and miserliness and the series of questions “what gives rise to…” are answered thus:

  • Envy and miserliness arise from liking and disliking
  • Liking and disliking arise from desire
  • Desire arises from thinking
  • Thinking arises from elaborated perceptions and notions.

There are a number of interesting points in this list. Perhaps the most important one is that liking and disliking lead us to divide the world into two parts; the parts we like and the parts we don’t. Based on our likes and dislikes, we spend our energy pulling the former towards us and pushing the latter away. From one perspective, this is the framework for our lives: constant grasping and rejecting. Also, the people and things we like and dislike keep changing, so there is no rest from this grinding of gears.

When the Buddha says that thinking is the root of the problem, he specifies “elaborated perceptions and notions”. There is a word in Pali, papañca, that is normally translated as “conceptual proliferation”. It describes a mental process we are all familiar with in which we ruminate on something until it becomes ever bigger and more ominous. If we could regularly interrupt this process with mindfulness, we would probably not take our thoughts quite so seriously and would consequently have fewer conflicts in our lives.

However, people are people, and we are people, and the unavoidable consequence is that we will have disputes and conflict among ourselves until we are fully awakened. These conflicts are grist for our spiritual mills; they are the teachers and the lessons. When things go wrong, if we look to our own reactivity rather than blaming our discomfort on an outside source, we can recognize and release our unhelpful thought processes and become more free.


Filed under Anger, General, Patience, Relationships

A good visitor

In this surprising (to me) sutta, the Buddha gives his monks and nuns specific “do”s and “don’t”s for visiting with lay families. Normally monastics would visit laypeople either to receive a meal or to tend to someone’s needs, physical or spiritual. There are some useful guidelines for us to consider in the sutta:

Monks, possessing five qualities, a monk who is a visitor of families is displeasing and disagreeable to them and is neither respected nor esteemed by them. What five? (1) He presumes intimacy upon mere acquaintance; (2) he distributes things that he does not own; (3) he consorts for the sake of creating divisions; (4) he whispers in the ear; and (5) he makes excessive requests. Possessing these five qualities, a monk who is a visitor of families is displeasing and disagreeable to them and is neither respected nor esteemed by them.

Monks, possessing five other qualities, a monk who is a visitor of families is pleasing and agreeable to them and is respected and esteemed by them. What five? (1) He does not presume intimacy upon mere acquaintance; (2) he does not distribute things that he does not own; (3) he does not consort for the sake of creating divisions; (4) he does not whisper in the ear; and (5) he does not make excessive requests. Possessing these five qualities, a monk who is a visitor of families is pleasing and agreeable to them and is respected and esteemed by them.  (AN 5:11, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Most of these recommendations apply equally to ordained and lay people. We can seriously put people off by presuming an intimacy that we haven’t earned through a long relationship.

I can hardly imagine the situation in which a monk or nun “distributes things he or she doesn’t own”, so I’m going to leave the second instruction aside for now.

“Consorting for the sake of creating divisions” is clearly a transgression of one of the right-speech precepts, but one could also create divisions non-verbally, by appearing to side with one individual or group against another.

“Whispering in the ear” is a wonderfully vivid description. It brings to mind palace intrigue or any form of communication that implies secrecy from someone who is present. In any case, it is poor form to whisper to one person while others are present. At a minimum, it implies an in-group and an out-group.

Making excessive requests will make anyone unpopular. We’ve all known people who have asked for more than others wanted to give.

By being aware of these specific actions that we can take or refrain from taking, we can monitor how our visits are received. We can put ourselves in the place of the host(s) and ask ourselves whether we would welcome the behaviors occurring. We can notice when others are particularly good or bad guests. These factors are components of cultivating relationships that support the development of integrity and wisdom, in ourselves and others.


Filed under Friendships, General, Relationships, Speech