(This is Part 6 of a series. Go back to Part 5.)
Another example was provided today, when a friend told me about a message he received a few days ago from his estraged son, who had basically lived off his father's largesse for a long time and who had recently been forced to move out of the rent-free apartment long provided by his father.
The only message was approximately this: "Send $200."
The father proposed sending a note back with no money but saying approximately this: "I'm not sending you any money because you're an ungrateful son and you value me only for my money."
I pointed out that this message was essentially a "Fuck you" and, while it might feel gratifying for a short while, would probably be counter-productive in terms of re-establishing a real relationship of mutual regard and love.
However, that didn't mean the father should send his son the desired money. On the contrary, it seemed important for the father to not further enable his son's addiction to receiving and depending upon his dad's largesse.
But as said, it seemed that sending a veiled "Fuck you" to his son wouldn't be constructive either, and would only lead to further estragement between them.
The Buddha taught, all the way back in 2500 BC, the central principle involved: "Hatred," he said (substitute here the word "dislike" or "resentment" and so forth), "never ceases by hatred. Hatred only ceases by love."
Further, what kind of example did the father want to set?
–An angry father profoundly dissatisfied with his son? (What kind of influence would that have?) Or...
–A father who, while being no doormat for his son, was unconditionally loving?
It's sometimes thought that if we love someone that we have to give them whatever they want. Not true. It was Byron Katie who taught me that we can say "No" to someone without being at all harsh about it.
Katie pointed out that there are actually two parts to a "No" message: The first part is some variation of "I love you" and the second part is some variation of "No". And that we often leave out the first part, which makes our "No" seem harsh or unloving.
That is, we can be very firm with someone without in any way diminishing our love for them. In other words, our love is always there as the context of our communication. Within that, our inner knowing may come out as a "Yes" or a "No" to any specific request.
I've benefitted from so many great teachers in my life. Haven't we all? I want to here express my gratitude to each and every one of them.
(This is the end of Part 6. Go to Part 7.)
—jim sloman, 7.23.05
|
