Hi Lama la, I’m a 28-year-old mother, and I have a general question based on a specific incident. An old friend has started to speak to me rudely and is backbiting about me to friends. As I was afraid that there was a misunderstanding, I have asked her about her attitude, but she just laughed. We have a few mutual friends. Otherwise, we have don’t hang out with the same group of people and so I can avoid her. However, I wonder what is the best to deal with such situations? Thank you la.
Master – You were wise to ask your friend about her change in attitude towards you as it could have been based on misinformation. However, there is no specific way to address such issues, and responses depend on people’s personalities and their relationship with the friend. Basically, an effective way of addressing one such situation may prove counterproductive in another.
While we may not always be able to save a friendship, we can at least avoid perpetuating a negative situation by looking at it with clear understanding.
What is clear understanding? Well, there are a number of ways of considering a situation that could be classed as such, but one is to see things from a wide angle. In the case of friendships that have turned sour, for example, we can recognize that no-one goes from birth until death without encountering misunderstandings or fractured relationships.
Even beings who are considered the epitome of peace and harmony, such as HH Dalai Lama or Mahatma Gandhi, have or had detractors, not to mention the Buddha, whose cousin Devadatta had a life-long vendetta against him.
So, if even a perfect being like the Buddha had an enemy, how can we expect to sail through life with everyone loving us and without experiencing a single misunderstanding. It’s impossible. If we can grasp this point, we will less likely take hostility personally and wonder “Why me”, but instead see relationship downturns as unavoidable aspects of life.
With this kind of understanding, we will develop a greater willingness to consider ways to heal the situation, or at least accept it, rather than seek revenge or feel disheartened.
Furthermore, if we can accept that the causes and conditions that maintain or break relationships were gathered in previous lives, we will choose ways that calm the situation, rather than agitate it and cause the negativity to continue into the future .
Another example of clear understanding is to recognize that enemies and friends are not permanent realities, but merely shifting concepts. When we acknowledge this fact, we no longer hate so-called enemies, while clinging strongly to friendships.
This doesn’t mean that we just let friendships fade without any attempt to restore the bonds, but rather we consider relationships as part of the bigger picture that no term of reference, whether it be friend or foe, is permanent.
On this point, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche has said: “There is nothing fixed about the status of an enemy or friend, and so to feel hostility towards enemies and affection towards your friends is nothing but a deluded form of perception.”
As an example of Rinpoche’s words, think of people in two different countries. At war, they may be ready to kill each other on the battlefield. In times of peace, they could be golfing buddies or business partners. Basically, the state of our relationships is dependent on circumstances. They are not fixed, and there is no such thing as a permanent, unchanging friend or enemy. At the very least the connection will break at the time of death.
Now, another aspect of clear understanding is to recognize that so-called adversaries are not totally bad, but people who possess many characteristics that change according to circumstances.
How does this understanding change our reaction to an adversary? Simply put, viewing a person as intrinsically bad is like wearing dark tinted specs. It causes us to see the person in one single colour – black. In contrast, recognizing that a person has many traits and characteristics is like removing the specs, allowing us to see him or her in multi-colour, with many nuances and shades.
How does this scenario play out in the real world? Without clear understanding, an adversary is, as mentioned, generally seen as totally bad, and to support this view we deliberately recall all the negative things they have done. From this standpoint, we feel justified in denouncing them or even subjecting them to violence. At such a time, if anyone reminds us of the kindnesses they have done, we will dismiss these acts and continue to denounce them as bad people.
Clear understanding pokes holes in the fixed and rigid view that people can be inherently and permanently bad.
Once this understanding dislodges our former misguided view, anger subsides and even the concept of an enemy crumbles and disappears. Dilgo Khyentse concurs on this point: “Trample on anger with realization and it dissolves like a cloud in the sky; and as it dissolves, the notion of ‘enemy’ will vanish with it.”
This understanding not only “dissolves the notion of a fixed enemy” with regard to a single person, but also destroys the idea that entire races and groups of people are inherently and permanently bad. In this way, the causes of wars and genocides are severed at the root.
Why is this so? Well, unless we are compelled to fight under orders, the intense anger and hatred that is required to kill or maim others is derived from seeing them as fully and inherently bad – as demons with no redeeming characteristics.
However, if we understand that even a single human being does not possess permanent and inherent negative characteristics, then how can an entire race of people possess these traits as if joined to a central brain. It’s impossible.
So, to conclude, rather than establishing a set format on how to address animosity, we should consider the situation from a wide perspective. First of all, we recognize that broken friendships, animosity, etc., are a part of life and no-one can avoid them. We further consider that a so-called enemy is not inherently and permanently bad – they may exhibit negative and harmful behaviour, which needs to be addressed – but they are not intrinsically bad.
So, there are many ways to consider broken friendships, but as a final suggestion I recommend that you remind yourself that every sentient being possesses Buddha or original nature, which is pure, and that negative traits are merely temporary defilements.
As an example, think of Buddha nature and negative traits as respectively a diamond and mud that coats the gemstone. Now, the dirt never penetrates the molecules of the diamond and so it can be washed away, revealing a shiny and pristine gemstone.
Our negative traits, such as anger, are the same. They are not part of our Buddha nature and so like the mud can be removed. How do we know that characteristics, such as anger, are not part of our original nature? Well, if they were, we would be born angry and irritated in every moment of our lives, but that is not the case.
If we can grasp this point, we will never consider that someone is inherently bad, but a being who has the potential to change. As an example of this, we need only think of the great yogi Milarepa. He killed many members of his family, but later became an awakened being who has inspired generations of people.