Brief Review
We’re continuing with the topic we began in the last session, the dependent arising of the self in relation to others. To review a little bit of what we’ve covered, the topic is a merging of the Buddhist perspective of dependent arising with a further analysis from contextual therapy. Contextual therapy is a branch of family therapy. It speaks not only of a person’s individual psychological profile, but also how that is affected by the dynamics of the systems, like the family, with which one interacts with others. This is consistent with the Buddhist views that we don’t exist just by ourselves, independent of everything else. We all exist within the context of family, environment, work, etc.
Dependent arising is speaking about the interconnectedness of everything, and how when we affect one thing in a system it affects everything else in the system. We address the self, the other person and the relationship between us all in terms of dependent arising. These all arise dependently on many different factors, causes, parts and the conceptual framework with which we specify these.
Buddhist Perspective on the Self, Other and Relationships
When we speak about ourselves, we arise in each moment dependent upon previous moments of ourselves. Buddhism focuses on what is happening right now. This doesn’t last very long, obviously, and is constantly changing. We grow from moment to moment based on our history, what we’ve experienced in the past and how we respond to new situations. The same is true about the other person, you, and also about our relationship. The type of relationship we might have also grows from moment to moment and has its own history.
Also, the self, other and relationship are going to be affected by the context in which it occurs. In other words, we are affected by what’s going on around us. There’s also going to be a type of dependence on parts. Regarding ourselves, there are various aspects, such as a business life, our family, life in general, our sports life, and so on. There are many different parts and aspects. In addition, there are things like our emotional life and our intellectual life. These change and grow throughout a lifetime and the same is happening with the other person. Our relationship is also going to grow and change over time as we share different parts of ourselves with each other. Of course, we have many relationships, not just one with one person. All these variables will change and differ in each relationship.
Things Arise Relative to Each Other
Another type of dependent arising is relational. Two things arise simultaneously that are relative to each other like, for example, long and short. We can’t have long without there also being short. The same thing is true in terms of the self. We can’t really have self without there being non-self. This fits in with the Buddhist concept of specification. When we see a glass, for example, what we see directly is the glass; however, we also know that it’s not something else. We’re able to specify that it’s a glass, by differentiating it from everything else that’s not a glass. It’s the same thing as when we speak of our individuality as a person. We can’t really be an individual unless it is relative to others who aren’t “me.” Self and other arise dependent to each other like long and short, or long and not long.
Three Spheres
We have something a bit similar to this in the Buddhist presentation of what’s known as the “three spheres” of an action. When we speak about a self hugging somebody, the self can’t exist independently of another person being hugged or the action of hugging. These three can’t exist independently all by themselves. We can’t be hugging somebody, unless there is somebody whom we are hugging. We can’t have that occur, this type of interaction, without there being the action of hugging. Also, this whole interaction is dependent on concepts and words. There is the concept of hugging, which has a certain definition and meaning to different people in different cultures. For example, if we put out arms around someone, we might consider that hugging and it has the certain connotation that we like the person. However, the other person might think, “Why is this person putting their arms around me? Do they want to wrestle and throw me onto the floor?”
We can actually get into a lot of trouble in terms of how we greet someone. In some cultures, we kiss each other in greeting on the cheek. In each culture, the number of times that we kiss is very significant and also if the lips actually touch the cheek, or make a sound with the kiss. I have had personal experience when I greeted a woman from a different culture and my lips actually touched this woman’s cheek. This was not the custom in that country and she completely misunderstood my intentions, thinking it meant I had romantic interest.
Therefore, we can see that there is dependent arising in terms of concepts, names and labels for the things that we do, and that this is important. The action itself doesn’t exist as hugging or greeting from its own side. The same thing is true in terms of me, you and relationships. How we conceptualize the relationship is very significant. It can be that the relationship is “just friends” or partners. What does “partner” actually mean? How the relationship exists and what is dependently involved can be very confusing when each person can have very different concepts of the relationship. Very often this happens.
Contextual Therapy: Five Dimensions of Relational Reality
Contextual therapy adds more variables that fit into the presentation of dependent arising. This is one of the areas that can expand the development of Buddhism as it spreads around the world. Contextual therapy proposes five dimensions of what they refer to as relational reality. There is the dimension of factual variables; for two people in a relationship there are facts such as age, heritage, gender, language spoken, etc. There is the dimension of psychological variables, which includes the emotional and psychological profile, the levels of intelligence, the sensitivity maturity, etc. of each person. All of this is going to affect the relationship. Then, there is the dimension of systemic variables. This involves the systems that the relationship occurs within and how it affects the interactions. For example, being in the army, a Muslim society, an office environment or being in a restrictive family structure all will affect how one person interacts with the other.
Also, this dimension of factual variables involves the way two people interact, whether aggressive or passive, domineering or submissive. Next, is the dimension of relational ethics which includes balance, fairness and consideration of each other. For instance, is there balance between giving and taking? Is there one person always giving to the other or is the other always taking without giving anything in return? There can be a lot of resentment. Also included here would be how the two people share expenses and the workload at home. These things need to be fair and if not, once again, this can lead to resentment and problems.
The last example is the dimension of relational self/other establishment. This deals with the type of relation of “me” and “you” that are established in the relationship. For instance, is it a self and an “it,” when one person treats the other as an object without any consideration for that person’s feelings and so on? This type of relationship can exist, possibly, with the check-out counter clerk at a store. We’re not really interested in their emotional life or home life or anything. They are just an “it” in that way. It can also be an it/other relationship. For instance, if we are involved in social work, we are only interested in others’ emotional, financial or environmental hardships and don’t share anything of our own personal lives. For them we are just the “it.”
We can relate to the other person as a “we,” a sort of merging of the two people in the relationship. Often that happens with a couple; for example, “We don’t like to do that.” They speak as if they were a unit. Two other modes are included here. One is when we establish ourselves in terms of a cause or project; and another is in terms of a conscience and constant dialogue with the conscience. For example, “You shouldn’t do that. It’s bad.”
There is also the true I/you relationship, in which both sides can switch back and forth being the subject and can relate to each other without judgments and preconceptions. It’s just being very open to the other person and everything about them.
This concludes a brief review of the basic theory that we’ve covered. What we will do in this and the next sessions this weekend is apply this dimensional analysis of three specific types of relationships that we enter into as a serious Buddhist practitioner. In each of our three sessions, we will discuss one of these types of relationships.
Application to Three Types of Relationships in Buddhism
First, as a Mahayana practitioner, we are striving to benefit all sentient beings. That means absolutely everybody. What relationship can we establish in that type of framework with everybody? Everybody means anybody that we encounter, that we meet. What type of relationship do we establish? The second type of relationship is the one with our spiritual teacher. The third is the relationship that we establish in tantric practice when we identify with a specific Buddha-figure, a yidam. When we imagine ourselves as Tara or Chenrezig, what type of relationship do we actually establish with that? We will explain this further when we discuss that part.
In all three of these relationships, we will analyze the optimal way for the relationships to work, the conventional obstacles that can arise, for which we need to be watchful, and the deepest obstacles that can arise when we don’t understand the reality of what is actually going on in our interaction and relationship. Lastly, we will examine how this type of relationship affects our personal relationships with family, close friends and so on. Sometimes there can be great conflicts. For example, when our teacher is leading a meditation retreat but our partner wants us to go on vacation with them to the beach. What do we do?
Relationship to Others as a Mahayana Practitioner
I think it’s very helpful to use this five-dimensional analysis form of contextual therapy to identify some of the typical problems that can arise for Buddhist practitioners. It gives us a very good framework for being able to understand certain issues.
Let’s begin with the relationship that we have with all sentient beings, with everybody, when we are working to attain enlightenment to be best able to benefit them all. We can view this theoretically and just sit in meditation and think this; however, what do we do in our actual everyday life? This is why the analysis is crucial. We’re not just sitting in meditation on a cushion imagining helping everybody, but we are dealing with real life situations.
Dimension of Factual Variable
Optimally, we should be able to help anybody according to the bodhisattva model, no matter what our everyday situation might be. It shouldn’t matter how old we are, whether we are a man or woman, what country we are from, what language we speak or what is our occupation. It shouldn’t matter if we are sick or busy. Ideally, we are able to relate like a bodhisattva to everybody. That’s not easy, is it?
In terms of others, we should be able to relate to anyone regardless of their situation. It shouldn’t matter about their gender, country or origin, the language they speak, or how old they are or if they are sick or healthy. Obviously, we can see that this is very challenging. In true Buddhist theory, it shouldn’t matter what life form they are in either. It could be a cockroach, other insects and animals; they are equal to everybody. This is a consequence of the Buddhist teaching to regard everybody as having been our mother in some previous life. We take this seriously.
Conventional and Deepest Obstacles
What are the conventional obstacles that can arise on this factual level? It can be that our everyday situation is too challenging, difficult and overwhelming. For example, we are too busy, with too much work to do, too sick, too tired or too poor. Optimally that shouldn’t matter; however, obviously, these are very difficult situations for us to behave as a bodhisattva with everybody that we meet.
Conventional obstacles in terms of others would be that their situation is too challenging. They can be too busy, too sick, or disabled. It is too difficult to deal with these types of situations. What happens when the other person is very sick and we’re concerned that we will catch their disease?
There are the deepest obstacles as well. This would be to identify ourselves or others as being self-established. That means to rigidly and permanently identify ourselves or others with one or more of these factual variables. We are unable to relate to somebody else because we solidly identify with certain facts about them because it’s just too different from us.
For example, we solidly identify with being a man or a woman and we can’t relate to the other gender. We think as a man, we can’t possibly understand all the problems that a woman might encounter or visa-versa. As opposed to just being human beings, for example, it could be that we are so strongly identified with being American and others are so strongly identified with being Russian that we think we can’t possibly relate to each other or understand each other. We don’t even speak the same language. That would be an example of a deepest obstacle. Another example would be that we are young and can’t relate to old people, or we can’t relate to someone who has cancer, these types of things. These are obstacles where we strongly identify with our and the other person’s factual situation and conclude that there is too much difference.
When we have these types of obstacle, we really need to practice strongly seeing that everybody is a person just as we are with the same emotional problems. We all have to experience death, old age and sickness. We need to not identify others with only one particular situation or characteristic. No matter how tired, sick or busy we might be, if somebody needs our help, we do whatever we are capable of doing at that time as if it were our closest friend or relative in need.
Dimension of Psychological Variables
Ideally, it should be that we have love, understanding and patience equally toward everybody. We have the ability to take in all the information from somebody else, really listen to them carefully and understand what is happening to them, seeing the patterns. Optimally, the emotional or psychological state of others doesn’t matter because we are working to help everybody. Even if somebody is deeply emotionally disturbed, a very angry person or someone with deep psychological problems, we still engage in bodhisattva behavior toward them. We are working to benefit this person as well. We aren’t turned off or afraid. We have a clear understanding of what would be helpful or unhelpful for any particular person. For instance, even just a smile toward somebody is wonderful gift.
Conventional and Deepest Obstacles
In terms of ourselves, the conventional obstacles in this psychological realm are that we lack an equal attitude toward everybody. We are attracted to some, repelled by others and we tend to ignore yet others. We can also be overwhelmed by our own disturbing emotions and still haven’t conquered our anger, our lust or our self-centeredness. We might also overestimate our ability to deal with difficult people.
In terms of others, it would be that they are overwhelmed by their anger or whatever disturbing emotions, and we are unprepared and don’t know how to deal with this person who is so angry and upset. For instance, the other person might be in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s disease and it’s just too difficult. We have no idea how to relate to this person and in fact, we are afraid to be with them. It makes us feel so uncomfortable.
The deepest obstacle would be us identifying ourselves concretely as already being a bodhisattva when we haven’t really resolved our psychological and emotional issues. For instance, we imagine that we are a bodhisattva and we can deal with everybody; however, we still haven’t really dealt with our sexual attractions to some people and that starts to very much interfere with our efforts to help others. We are, in a sense, also trying to get them to like us and seduce them. If we’re going to try to work as a bodhisattva, we’re going to really need a highly developed level of emotional maturity. This has been an overview of the dimension of psychological variables.
We can also make a mistake trying to be a bodhisattva with being a martyr or a saint. This can get very confusing; for example, thinking that “I’m so holy and such a saint and I will help everybody and it doesn’t matter what happens to me.”
By analyzing it this way with these variables and looking at the obstacles that can arise, it provides excellent guidelines of what to examine in ourselves if we are in fact trying to follow the bodhisattva path. Don’t be naïve to think that it’s so easy. It’s not easy at all and is very advanced.
Graded Stages of the Path, Lam-rim
If we look at the structure of the lam-rim, the graded stages of the path, the bodhisattva behavior is advanced. It’s not for beginners. With the initial level we’ve basically developed self-control so that when we have the impulse to yell at someone or to try to seduce or impress somebody, we have enough self-control to not do that. In the intermediate level, we’ve dealt with our disturbing emotions to at least some level of success so that we’re not overwhelmed by anger, lust or jealousy and these sorts of things. It’s on that basis that we can then try to practice bodhisattva behavior on the advanced level. Through our previous work on the initial and intermediate levels, we have tried to minimize these obstacles that can come up.
Dimension of Systemic Variables
Regarding the dimension of systemic variables, the third dimension, optimally we should be able to keep our commitment to be able to benefit all beings no matter what type of system we live in, whether in a family, on our own or in a monastery. It shouldn’t matter whether we are in an aggressive society, like the military or a prison; we should still be like a bodhisattva and try to help everybody. It might be that we live in a society where there is very strong competition, this “me first” attitude, and then it is very difficult to want to benefit everybody else.
With others, it doesn’t matter what society or family situation they are in, we are able to work and interact with everyone as a bodhisattva.
Conventional and Deepest Obstacles
There are many conventional obstacles that arise in this dimension. We can be in a family or in a business in which we have so many responsibilities that it leaves us very little time to help others. We might have to raise a family or make money, etc. There might be pressure to follow the customs of the society or the group, such as the military, and it conflicts with our Buddhist values.
In terms of others, the heaviest type of conventional obstacle is when people we have close relationships with, such as family members, partners and friends, demand an exclusive association and commitment with us. They don’t want someone to go out to try to help others; they just say, “Please stay with me.” This expectation can create a horrible conflict. It often happens when a partner is not at all into Buddhism and we want to go to a teaching or go to work in a socially beneficial profession, and they say, “No, stay home and watch television with me. You don’t love me because you want to go out.”
The deepest obstacle is identifying concretely with being a Buddhist and becoming inflexible when dealing with non-Buddhists. For example, being inflexible and insisting that everyone must believe in reincarnation and these types of aspects with people who are within a completely different type of mentality. This is being a fundamentalist Buddhist.
The Dimension of Relational Ethics
This is the fourth dimension. From the Buddhist point of view, we’ve received the kindness of everybody when they’ve been our mothers. Optimally, we are committed to being available to others at any time and to accept placing their interests before our own. We are willing to help, be kind and nice without expecting anything whatsoever in return, not even a thank you. Also, we don’t differentiate between friend, enemy or stranger and show kindness to them all equally.
Optimally, others would receive direct benefit from our interaction with them. What we are hoping for is that we know how to deal with people and do the right thing.
Conventional and Deepest Obstacles
Conventional obstacles would be that our past or present experiences of injustices, such as being treated unfairly by others, block us from being kind or generous to others. For example, if our parents never showed us affection, we might feel that it was unfair. Unconsciously, we might seek affection from others that we are trying to help. This makes a block in us. In helping others, we would actually have a self-serving motivation to receive affection and appreciation that we never received from our parents.
In terms of others, the conventional obstacle would be that they make unfair demands on us and become dependent on us. They resent the kindness that we show to others.
The deepest obstacle is identifying concretely with being a bodhisattva and imagining that we have the wisdom and understanding to know how to help or be kind to everybody when, in fact, we don’t know how to do that at all. This might be confusing being a bodhisattva with being a saint and think that all we need to do is go around and bless everybody; this is absurd. For example, we might think that all we have to do is just sit here and radiate out white light to everybody, sending out love and never having to actually get off the seat and do anything to help anybody. There are Dharma fanatics, and when someone needs their help carrying a heavy package up the stairs, they just sit and do their praying, om mani padme hum.
The Dimension of Relational Self/Other Establishment
Optimally, we are able to establish a global “we” in which self and all others are equal. We all want to be happy, including ourselves, and don’t want to be unhappy. We consider ourselves equal to all humanity or to all sentient beings. No matter whom we encounter, we are able to establish a true I/you dialogue. In other words, we don’t judge them or have preconceptions about them; we accept them for the type of person that they are.
In terms of others, ideally, it doesn’t matter if they are able to establish a true I/you dialogue with us. It shouldn’t make any difference. Sometimes, it’s quite interesting when we have friendships in which we are very concerned about the other person. We always ask how things are going and listen to their stories, but they never ever ask how we are in return. As a bodhisattva, this shouldn’t matter to us. We are willing to establish the I/you dialogue regardless.
Conventional and Deepest Obstacles
Conventional obstacles are to have difficulties overcoming the self/it mode of relationships in which, for example, we are basically using other people as instruments for gaining merit. We don’t really care about them personally as individuals. For instance, on studybuddhism.com, it would be if I was just concerned with how many visitors came to the website. “Oh, there were this many visitors today.” They are all “its.” They aren’t really people but just numbers. This is a big danger and obstacle. When we are on social networks, is it just about numbers, about how many “likes” we get; or do we really care about each person?
The conventional obstacle on the side of others would be imposing their mode of relating onto us. For example, they might want to merge with us and become an exclusive “we” and possess us as their savior. It can also be the tendency of others to treat us as an object. They don’t care about us, and we might feel, “I am a real person too and need more than just helping you.” We have this in families in which the children, even as adults, might still relate to the parent as an object, a mother or father, and not as a human being who has feelings, problems and other situations. This is difficult, when we are trying to establish an I/you relationship and they are still just seeing us as teacher, mother, father or bodhisattva and not as a real person.
The deepest obstacle would be concretely identifying with the merger into a global “we,” and within that “we,” losing any sense of our own or others’ individuality. We might sort of merge into one big soup of “us.” Within the context of seeing everybody as equal, merging in that equality of all of us, in which nobody is special, it’s very easy to lose sight of the individuality of each person. Regardless of no one being special, everyone is an individual with their own individual needs and circumstances.
These are the five dimensions that affect the relationships that we have with all beings, with anybody as we’re working to benefit everybody. We can see that it is no small undertaking to work to benefit everyone. There are many obstacles that come up and we need to be aware and watch out for them, applying methods to try to overcome them. We need to not pretend to be at a higher stage of spiritual development than we actually are.
Balancing Our Close Relationships with Our Bodhisattva Behavior
The last point is how to deal with close personal relationships while we are working to benefit all beings. While trying to benefit everybody, we still have our parents, our family members and close friends, etc. How do we make a balance in our relationships and our bodhisattva behavior toward all beings?
In the Seven Point Mind Training text, there’s a very relevant piece of advice. We find the advice to “always meditate toward those set aside as close.” This means to set aside special time to be with our family members, especially our children and close friends. We need to be reliable in keeping that commitment. It’s very important when we’re working to benefit all of society that our close family members don’t feel as though we’re abandoning them. If we explain that we have a lot of work that we have to do, but every morning, for example, we will have breakfast together, we give them something and we are very strict in keeping that commitment so that we’re reliable. Then, they won’t feel so abandoned because we have given them something.
If we say to our children that we’ll play with them when we have time, it’s very uncertain when that time will ever come. It leaves the child in a terrible state of insecurity. If the child knows, for example, that every Saturday morning we will be there and play with him or her, there is something to look forward to and this offers security.
Conventional and Deepest Obstacles
The conventional obstacle would be us not making the time for our close friends, family members or partners. Also, it might be that we resent the time spent playing a card game with a child that takes us away from helping others. If we say we will spend time with our family, we resent the time that takes us away from other work for all beings. For instance, my mother liked to watch quiz shows on television and asked me to answer some of the questions, something I really didn’t like to do and wasn’t the slightest bit interested. An obstacle would be to resent that, complain about it and keep looking at the time when I could leave.
A conventional obstacle from the side of our family members and friends is when they feel neglected and resentful of our time spent working to help others. For instance, a parent might constantly complain that we don’t call or visit often enough. Then, we might feel guilty and visit just out of guilt.
The deepest obstacle is taking the equality of all beings as a justification for not making any special time for our family.
Conclusion
These are very important and relevant points to watch out for as a Buddhist practitioner trying to work to benefit all beings. In traditional Buddhist teachings they don’t really address these types of problems that can come up; however, when we add this analytical structure from contextual therapy, it gives us a framework for being able to examine these types of problems and try to avoid them.