Being kind vs being a doormat

[MagnetSoulSP]

I wanted to see what people though about what it means to be kind to others.

Is it being a people pleaser and not rocking the boat even at the cost of your values or happiness? Or is there times where kindness doesn’t seem so apparent like in instances of tough love? Are boundaries needed so you aren’t taken advantage of?

I used the doormat example because some people see being kind as never being “mean” or rocking the boat or upsetting people. But that’s not always a good approach.

[Budai]

I say be the kindest to the doormats, for they are a phenomena that bring us kindness and non-violence for our homes, entryways, and feet.

[Johnny Dangerous]

To paraphrase James Low here, sometimes we have to choose between kindness and awareness as our main values.

There are times where we can be nice and outwardly kind, and it just perpetuates whatever delusion we or others are operating under, doing no one any good. During those times, if one chooses to go with awareness, then we do so knowing full well that the actual of our words and interactions may not be "nice" at all, but that we are serving the greater good by not continuing to participate in or perpetuate our own delusions, or the delusions of others.

Of course there are lots of other times in daily life where we should just be kind, nothing else required.

[MagnetSoulSP]

To paraphrase James Low here, sometimes we have to choose between kindness and awareness as our main values.

There are times where we can be nice and outwardly kind, and it just perpetuates whatever delusion we or others are operating under, doing no one any good. During those times, if one chooses to go with awareness, then we do so knowing full well that the actual of our words and interactions may not be "nice" at all, but that we are serving the greater good by not continuing to participate in or perpetuate our own delusions, or the delusions of others.

Of course there are lots of other times in daily life where we should just be kind, nothing else required.

That’s what I think. There’s what I call “general decency” meaning to just be good to others and polite.

But there are cases where being nice just to maintain a facade is more damaging than good (though in rare cases not always). Like when someone complains to you how they can’t make friends and blame everyone else, in that case telling them that they might be the issue would hurt but in the long run it would help out. Same in cases of domestic abuse. It’s tougher there but spelling out that it’s wrong will save their life.

There’s also cases where kindness is enabling and not really aiding, like with addicts. It’s also good to be aware of when people are leaning on you or taking advantage of your kindness.

[Könchok Thrinley]

To paraphrase James Low here, sometimes we have to choose between kindness and awareness as our main values.

There are times where we can be nice and outwardly kind, and it just perpetuates whatever delusion we or others are operating under, doing no one any good. During those times, if one chooses to go with awareness, then we do so knowing full well that the actual of our words and interactions may not be "nice" at all, but that we are serving the greater good by not continuing to participate in or perpetuate our own delusions, or the delusions of others.

Of course there are lots of other times in daily life where we should just be kind, nothing else required.

That’s what I think. There’s what I call “general decency” meaning to just be good to others and polite.

But there are cases where being nice just to maintain a facade is more damaging than good (though in rare cases not always). Like when someone complains to you how they can’t make friends and blame everyone else, in that case telling them that they might be the issue would hurt but in the long run it would help out. Same in cases of domestic abuse. It’s tougher there but spelling out that it’s wrong will save their life.

There’s also cases where kindness is enabling and not really aiding, like with addicts. It’s also good to be aware of when people are leaning on you or taking advantage of your kindness.

I'd say do not limit "being kind" to "being nice" only. Being kind is a mental state and you can actually do even things that are not necessarily "nice". Sometimes relationships have to end. Sometimes people have to be stopped. A bit like seeing a dentist. Nothing dentists do is nice.

[DharmaJunior]

At least part of the question can potentially be answered in relation to population density, luxury and spirituality. For example I live in area with high population density, high luxury but low spirituality. People can afford to be generous albeit in ways that do not impact upon their daily lives. There seems to be a high degree of superficial generosity and mannerism that deflects from underlying feelings of selfishness. There again I really cannot generalize because if I offered a more qualitative analysis there are many exceptions of both rich and poor, religious or not.

On a personal note I have had interaction where someone in customer service/retail picked a fight with me for contesting his 'rank'. He does not care that he's not allowed to be rude, but seems to have worked out. He's still got his job, and I don't signpost my virtue so much. I just don't argue the toss over a few pennies.

[muni]

A bit like seeing a dentist. Nothing dentists do is nice.

Many love chocolats but a dentist could be more needed than another piece.
In that way I would say be kind, but always for the benefit of the other.

Sakya Pandit: be aware of wicked minds, being ( sweet) kind to them is only making them more wicked and so doesn't help at all.

Those who see others as doormats, should go to lay under them.
There the key to open the door of selfishness could be as well, to benefit all instead of oneself.

H H Dalai Lama: if you like to be selfish, do it good, care about others/all. Be kind, always.

[MagnetSoulSP]

True. There can be a way to be selfish and still help other people even if it’s only for selfish reasons the outcome is the same. It would be nice if the motivation were altruistic but that’s not always possible.

[DharmaJunior]

Imagine a person holding onto a cow. The rope represents attachment. The cow represents the doormat. The master is the person. Now if the attachment is lifted the cow/doormat runs away. So now the master is 'doormattless'. I mean, if you want to talk about the possibility of boundaries we need space/time (to reflect?) or some sort of doormat refuge. Best case scenario, the master relinquishes all attachment.