Guidance or Control? Knowing the Difference

Relationships provide countless opportunities for one being to share knowledge, experience, wisdom, and guidance with another being. A parent may guide a child, a Teacher may guide a Student, a friend may be asked for advice, a life partner may ask what the other person thinks about a difficult decision, or a family member may seek help understanding a situation they are experiencing. Sharing guidance can be a practice of generosity and can be wholesome and beneficial when the other person is actually interested in receiving it. The problem begins when the mind moves beyond simply sharing what it understands and develops a “want” regarding what the other person should do with the information. At that point, the Practitioner is no longer merely sharing guidance based in generosity. The mind has developed craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations concerning the other being’s decision, and the Practitioner may begin attempting to convince, persuade, pressure, or otherwise shape the other person’s conduct according to what the Practitioner expects. What may have begun as guidance can then become controlling conduct rooted in the Practitioner’s own unEnlightened mind.

It is important to understand from the beginning that one being cannot actually control another being. A person can attempt to control another through speech, conduct, criticism, repeated urging, threats, financial leverage, withdrawing affection, withholding friendliness, recruiting others to apply pressure, or countless other behaviors, but whether the other being actually does what is being requested remains that individual’s own decision. Every person is their own decision-maker. Even when someone appears to comply because another person has pressured them, that compliance is still a decision made within their own mind. The only thing that a human being truly “has” to do is die. Everything else involves decisions and is a choice. Another being may attempt to make a circumstance difficult, unpleasant, or harmful, but that does not remove the individual’s decision-making. An attempt to control can occur, but actual control over another being cannot.

This understanding is highly important for developing harmonious relationships because the unEnlightened mind commonly confuses caring about another person with wanting that person to make the decision we think is best. Care itself is not the problem. A person can genuinely care about another being and sincerely be interested in seeing them be well. But if discontentedness arises when the other person decides differently, the care has become tainted with craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations. The Red Light has illuminated. The mind is no longer merely interested in the other being’s welfare. It has developed an expected outcome and wants that outcome to occur. The Practitioner may then begin telling themselves, “I am only trying to help,” while the actual conduct begins moving away from wholesome guidance and toward an attempt to obtain a particular result from the other person.

This is where the Practitioner needs clarity of mind. The question is not merely, “Do I care about this person?” The more useful question is, “Does the mind want this person to make a particular decision?” A person can care and still be attached. A parent can care deeply about a child and still attempt to control the child. A life partner can care deeply about the other person and still attempt to control the partner’s decisions. A Teacher can sincerely be interested in a Student progressing and still become attached to whether the Student follows the guidance. Care can remain present while being tainted by craving. Therefore, the existence of care does not prove that the conduct is wise. The Red Light reveals whether craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations are also present.

Interested in Guidance

With adult-to-adult relationships—and increasingly as a child develops sufficient wisdom and decision-making ability—the Practitioner would be wise to determine first whether the other person is actually interested in receiving guidance. This is a very important distinction because there is no wholesome reason to go through life continually telling others what they should do, how they should think, what decision they should make, what career they should pursue, how they should manage their relationships, how they should raise their children, how they should spend their money, or how they should conduct any aspect of their life. Imagine a world in which every person constantly gave unsolicited guidance to everyone else. People would walk around correcting one another, advising one another, and explaining what everyone else should do, even when no one had asked for help. That would not be a harmonious world. It would be a world filled with ego, craving, interference, and constant attempts by one mind to position itself above another thinking it knows what is wholesome or unwholesome for others.

Giving unsolicited guidance to another adult, or to a developing child who is capable of making the decision for themselves, comes from the unEnlightened mind’s craving and ego because the mind is essentially saying, “I know what is right or wrong for your life, and I need to tell you what to do even though you did not ask me”. The Practitioner may attempt to describe this as helping, but the more important question is whether the other person is actually interested in the guidance. If they are not interested, then why is the Practitioner sharing it? The answer will commonly be found in the Practitioner’s own craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations and ego. The Practitioner wants the person to change something, stop something, begin something, understand something, or make a different decision. In this way, unsolicited guidance can become an early expression of the mind’s attempt to control an outcome.

There is also a very practical issue involving time, effort, energy, and resources. A Practitioner has limited resources available in life. It would be unwise to spend significant time explaining something to another person who has not shown any interest in hearing it. If someone is interested in guidance, they can solicit it. They may ask a question, request an opinion, seek clarification, or openly indicate that they would like help understanding something. When this occurs, the Practitioner knows that the other person is actually interested in hearing what is being shared. That creates a very different situation because the Practitioner is not inserting themselves into the other person’s life. The individual has voluntarily sought guidance.

When guidance is solicited, the Practitioner could then share what they understand to be wise, explain likely results, describe relevant principles, answer questions, and provide whatever information may be beneficial. The Practitioner can do this generously and thoroughly because the person has expressed interest. But even within solicited guidance, another subtle danger remains. If the Practitioner begins wanting the other being to listen in a particular way, agree, change their mind, follow the guidance, make a particular decision, or produce any other desired outcome, then craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations has entered the relationship and it is no longer based in generosity due to the mind having an expectation. The guidance may have been properly solicited, but the Practitioner’s mind has now become attached to what the person does with it and has formed an expectation.

The Practitioner is therefore not attempting to influence the other person while providing guidance. Influence implies trying to move another person’s mind toward an expected conclusion. The Practitioner is not trying to convince, persuade, or produce compliance. The Practitioner is sharing guidance because the other being is interested in receiving it. What the other being ultimately chooses to do remains entirely up to them. They may ask more questions, reflect deeply, apply the guidance, apply only part of it, decide differently, or eventually change their mind later. None of those outcomes need to disturb the Practitioner’s mind. The Practitioner has shared what was requested. The other being now makes their own decision without the forcefulness of the Practitioner attempting to convince them in any way.

When Guidance Becomes an Attempt to Control

One of the clearest indications that craving has entered the relationship is strong and repeated urging. If a person continually and forcefully attempts to get another being to make a different decision, the conduct is no longer simply guidance. The repeated urging reveals that the mind wants an outcome. There is no need for something to be done “strongly” in a harmonious relationship. Strongly urging, strongly influencing, or strongly disagreeing with another being is forceful. The Practitioner has moved beyond sharing wisdom and is attempting to push the other person’s decision-making in a particular direction.

The mind may try to justify this conduct in many ways. It may say, “But this is important,” “I am worried about them,” “I know what will happen,” “They are making a mistake,” or “I am only doing this because I care”. But none of these explanations change what is occurring within the Practitioner’s mind. If the Practitioner is unable to remain peaceful when the other person chooses differently, the Red Light is showing that craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations are present. The stronger the emotional disturbance becomes, the more clearly the Practitioner can see that the mind is not simply sharing wisdom. It is wanting reality to become different from what it currently is.

The deeper problem is often not actually the other person’s decision. The Practitioner’s mind may be attempting to avoid its own conditioned painful feeling by convincing the other being to behave in the way the Practitioner wants. Suppose someone close to you is considering a decision that you think may produce an undesirable result. They ask for your guidance, and you explain what you understand. They listen carefully and then choose differently. At that moment, a conditioned painful feeling arises within your mind. Instead of recognizing that feeling as the Red Light, the mind may immediately look outward and conclude that the solution is to change the other person’s decision. The Practitioner may repeat the advice, create an argument, offer additional examples, criticize the decision, ask other people to intervene, or become irritated because the person is “not listening”.

But when the situation is examined carefully, the process becomes very clear. The other person has made a decision. A conditioned painful feeling is now arising within the Practitioner’s own mind. The Practitioner’s mind does not want to experience that feeling, so it attempts to remove the feeling by changing the other person’s conduct. The mind thinks, “If they would only do what I want, then I would feel better”. The mind is attempting to replace its conditioned painful feeling with a conditioned pleasant feeling by changing the other person’s decision. Rather than eliminating craving, the mind is attempting to satisfy the craving.

The wiser approach is entirely different. The Practitioner recognizes the Red Light and turns inward. Why does the mind want this person to make a particular decision? What is my mind wanting? What is it expecting? What outcome am I attached to? Why is the mind unable to remain peaceful if this person chooses differently? The problem to solve is not the other being’s decision. The problem to solve is the craving within one’s own mind. This is why relationships can become such valuable areas of practice. Other beings continually reveal where attachment remains because their decisions do not always correspond with what the unEnlightened mind would want.

Recognizing Controlling Conduct While It Is Occurring

The Buddha taught Practitioners to reflect upon bodily, verbal, and mental conduct before doing an action, while doing the action, and after the action has occurred. This Teaching appears in The Words of The Buddha, Volume 8 - Chapter 27, “Reflect Upon the Consequences of Actions,” based on MN 61. Before performing an action, the Practitioner considers whether the intended conduct would cause harm to oneself, harm to others, or harm to both. If the action would be harmful and unwholesome, the Practitioner would be wise not to proceed because there will be unwholesome Kamma (i.e. unwholesome results) produced and experienced. While performing an action, the Practitioner continues to observe the conduct. If it becomes clear that the action is harmful or unwholesome, The Buddha guides the Practitioner to suspend the action because there is unwholesome Kamma currently being produced. Afterward, the Practitioner reflects upon what occurred, seeks guidance when needed, makes amends where appropriate, and develops restraint so that the harmful conduct is not repeated and no further unwholesome Kamma is produced through that conduct.

This Teaching applies directly to controlling conduct within relationships. A Practitioner may begin a conversation thinking they are simply communicating, yet through Right Mindfulness they begin noticing that the conduct is changing. Perhaps they are repeating the same point again and again, speaking more forcefully, raising their voice, criticizing the other person, threatening consequences, withholding friendliness, or attempting to make the other person feel uncomfortable until they comply. At that moment, the Practitioner does not need to complete the argument. They do not need to make sure they “win” the point. They do not need to continue until the other person acknowledges that they understand. The wise action is to recognize that the conduct has become unwholesome and stop it.

Right Mindfulness notices what is occurring. Right Effort then cuts it off and lets it go. This is the practical value of developing mindfulness through Breathing Mindfulness Meditation and practicing mindfulness throughout daily life before relationship challenges arise. The Practitioner is training the mind to recognize unwholesome conduct while it is still occurring rather than discovering hours or days later that the conversation became harmful. A mind that is well trained can sometimes notice the shift very quickly. The body may become tense, the voice may change, the mind may begin repeating the same statements, or the Practitioner may notice a strong desire for the other person to agree. These are valuable signals because they allow the Practitioner to intervene in their own conduct before more harm occurs.

Once the conditioned feeling has been eliminated and the mind has become calm, the Practitioner can perform an Analysis of The Mind. What was the mind craving? What did it want the other person to do? What expectation existed? What outcome was the mind attached to? What was the craving/desire/attachment that caused the Red Light to illuminate? The Practitioner then develops a plan to eliminate that craving from the mind. Only after the mind is calm and the craving has been understood would the Practitioner determine whether any further communication is wise. In many situations, additional guidance would not be needed unless the other person continues to express interest and solicits further guidance.

Calmness -> Mindfulness -> Concentration -> Wisdom

The Teachings of The Buddha are not a “plug and play” system in which every situation can be reduced to a permanent rule stating, “If this happens, always do this”. Life contains too many changing variables for such an approach to produce consistently wise results. Two circumstances may appear similar on the surface while requiring very different decisions once the details are understood. The purpose of The Path is therefore not merely to provide a large collection of fixed instructions. The deeper training is to purify and develop the mind so that the Practitioner can access wisdom and make wise decisions according to the circumstances actually being experienced.

In The Words of The Buddha, Volume 7 - Chapter 20, the progression is explained as Calmness -> Mindfulness -> Concentration -> Wisdom. When the mind is calm, it can have mindfulness, meaning awareness of mind. With mindfulness, the mind can become concentrated, developing clarity of mind. With concentration, the Practitioner can access wisdom. Wisdom can then guide the decision appropriate to the situation. If the mind becomes uncalm, this process is disrupted. An uncalm mind has difficulty maintaining mindfulness. Without mindfulness, concentration becomes weak. Without concentration, access to wisdom is impaired. Decisions made from that condition are far more likely to be rooted in craving, anger, and ignorance (unknowing of true reality), producing unwholesome results (i.e. unwholesome Kamma).

This Teaching becomes particularly important when another being is making a decision that the Practitioner strongly dislikes or when a difficult situation is unfolding rapidly. For example, imagine witnessing another person being physically harmed. If one unarmed attacker is involved, the available wise responses may be very different from a situation in which ten people armed with guns and knives are involved. In the second situation, physically jumping into the middle of the attack may simply produce additional injuries without helping anyone. Seeking police, trained security, or other people with appropriate tools and training may be far wiser. There cannot be one permanent instruction such as “always physically intervene” or “never physically intervene”. Wisdom considers the variables and makes the wisest decision based on the uniqueness of each situation and the circumstances being experienced.

The same Teaching applies throughout relationships. The Practitioner may need to speak in one situation and remain silent in another. In one circumstance it may be wise to leave. In another it may be wise to seek help. In another the Practitioner may need to make a difficult decision regarding one’s own participation in a relationship. The answer is not found through reacting from an uncalm mind. The Practitioner first protects the mind so that calmness supports mindfulness, mindfulness supports concentration, and concentration provides access to wisdom. Then the Practitioner can make the wisest decision available based on the actual circumstances in the present moment.

This is also why the Practitioner would not be wise to attempt to think of The Teachings of The Buddha as a rigid decision tree. The goal is not to memorize hundreds of rules so that life can be handled mechanically. The goal is to develop the mind itself. A calm, mindful, concentrated mind can access wisdom wherever the Practitioner happens to be, even in a circumstance that has never been experienced before. That ability becomes far more useful than dependence upon fixed answers because life continually presents new variables due to impermanence.

Parents, Children, and the Impermanence of the Relationship

The parent-child relationship differs from ordinary adult-to-adult relationships because a young child does not yet possess enough wisdom or life experience to understand the results of many decisions. There will therefore be circumstances where a parent needs to restrain a minor child from conduct that could produce serious harm. A young child preparing to walk directly into oncoming traffic does not yet possess the wisdom to understand the result of that action. A parent would wisely restrain the child. A child becoming involved with drugs or other substances that cause heedlessness may also need parental intervention because the child has not yet developed sufficient wisdom to understand the possible consequences. These circumstances, however, do not establish a permanent model in which the parent continually makes the child’s decisions throughout life.

The parent-child relationship is itself impermanent. The relationship that exists when the child is five years old is not the same relationship that exists when the child is fifteen, twenty-five, or forty. The child’s body changes, their understanding develops, their life experience increases, their abilities change, and their decision-making gradually becomes more developed. Therefore, the parent’s participation in the relationship also needs to change. During early childhood, there may be more direct guidance, more supervision, and occasional protective restraint. As the child develops, the parent gradually steps back from making decisions for the child and creates increasing opportunities for the child to make decisions, experience results, reflect upon those results, and cultivate wisdom.

If the parent does not recognize the impermanence occurring within the relationship, the mind may cling to the relationship as it once existed. The parent may have become accustomed to deciding what the child eats, where they go, who they spend time with, what activities they participate in, what risks they may take, and what is considered best for them. As the child develops, this form of participation naturally needs to change. But as the child’s independence increases, discomfort may arise within the parent’s mind if the parent remains attached to the previous form of the relationship. The parent may not be comfortable with the changes, may not plan for them, and may begin resisting them.

The parent may then attempt to shelter the child from decisions the child is capable of making, protect the child from undesirable results, continue deciding things that should gradually belong to the child, or repeatedly give guidance that the child has not solicited. The parent may think this is protection or love, but the conduct can interfere with the exact process through which wisdom develops. Wisdom does not arise because another person continually makes all of our decisions for us. Wisdom develops through learning, reflection, decisions, results, further reflection, and improvement. Decisions produce results, and observing those results helps the mind understand what was wise or unwise.

If the parent continually makes decisions for the child or repeatedly prevents the child from exercising their own decision-making, the child may gradually learn, in effect, “I am not capable of making wise decisions without my parent”. At the same time, the child is losing opportunities to cultivate the wisdom that will eventually be needed throughout life. The parent may sincerely think they are protecting the child while unintentionally creating dependency. The child becomes accustomed to looking outward for decisions rather than developing sufficient confidence and wisdom within their own mind.

The parent’s role is not to make the child permanently dependent upon the parent’s wisdom. The parent’s role is to help the child gradually cultivate their own wisdom. This becomes especially important when impermanence is fully understood because the parent is impermanent in the child’s life. The parent will not always be physically present to answer questions, solve problems, make decisions, or protect the child from undesirable results. If the wisdom exists only within the parent’s mind, that wisdom cannot guide the child when the parent is no longer available. The child needs to cultivate wisdom within their own mind so that wisdom can remain with them throughout life.

A wise parent therefore plans for the changing relationship rather than clinging to the relationship as it previously existed. As the child develops, the parent’s participation changes. Greater protective restraint gradually gives way to greater opportunities for the child to decide, experience results, reflect, and cultivate wisdom. This transition does not mean the parent becomes uninterested in the child’s welfare. The parent can continue caring deeply while understanding that genuine help increasingly involves supporting the child’s cultivation of their own wisdom rather than replacing the child’s decision-making.

If the relationship has been developed harmoniously, something beneficial can occur naturally. The child learns that the parent is a source of wisdom but does not experience that wisdom as something constantly forced upon them. Because the parent has not repeatedly pushed unsolicited advice, the child may become comfortable voluntarily seeking the parent’s guidance. Long before adulthood, the child can develop an interest in voluntarily going to the parent for guidance and asking questions because guidance has been associated with support rather than control.

By adulthood, the relationship changes again. The adult child is now another adult decision-maker. Guidance from the parent would then be solicited by the adult child rather than the parent assuming an ongoing duty or obligation to direct the adult child’s life. If the relationship was cultivated wisely, the adult child may frequently come to the parent for guidance because they value the parent’s wisdom. But the guidance is now invited. The parent shares what is understood and then lets the adult child make their own decision.

This is far more harmonious than a relationship in which the parent clings to the role they held when the child was young and repeatedly attempts to continue directing the adult child’s life. The parent who recognizes impermanence can appreciate the changing relationship rather than experiencing the child’s independence as something threatening. The goal was never to create a child who always needed the parent. The goal was to help cultivate a person capable of making increasingly wise decisions for themselves.

Teacher and Student: Pointing the Way Without Shaping the Person

The Teacher–Student relationship provides one of the clearest examples of how guidance can exist without attempting to control another being. In The Words of The Buddha, Volume 2 - Chapter 2, “One Who Points Out Treasure,” The Buddha teaches Ānanda that he will not treat him as the potter treats raw damp clay. Raw damp clay is continually shaped by the potter into whatever form the potter wants it to become. The Buddha explains that he would not repeatedly restrain Ānanda in this way, continually shaping him into an ideal person. Instead, he would speak to him, guide him concerning what to avoid, and share The Teachings needed for his development while Ānanda remained the decision-maker of his own life and cultivated wisdom.

This Teaching is highly important because the purpose of a Teacher is not to create permanent dependence. A Teacher can share The Teachings, answer questions, identify areas of improvement, explain what is wise and unwise, ask questions to determine whether the Student understands, and guide the Student toward the development of wisdom. But the Teacher cannot practice for the Student. The Teacher cannot eliminate the Student’s craving. The Teacher cannot develop the Student’s mindfulness or concentration for them. The Teacher cannot make the Student attain Enlightenment. The Teacher points the way, but the Student needs to strive.

The Student therefore needs to participate actively in the relationship. The Student needs to learn, reflect, practice, ask questions, seek clarification, observe results, and return for further guidance when needed. The Teacher can continue sharing what is beneficial because the Student has entered the relationship specifically to learn and has expressed interest in receiving guidance. This is fundamentally different from approaching an uninterested adult and deciding that they should be instructed about how to live.

Even within the Teacher–Student relationship, however, the Teacher would not want a particular outcome from the Student. The Teacher may sincerely be interested in seeing the Student progress and may know that certain decisions would be more beneficial than others, but wanting the Student to make a particular choice would introduce craving/desire/attachment/wants/expectations into the relationship. The Teacher could explain likely results, answer questions, and point out areas where improvement would be beneficial. What the Student chooses to do with that guidance remains the Student’s own decision.

This preserves an essential purpose of the Teacher–Student relationship: the Student’s own wisdom needs to develop. The Teacher is impermanent in the Student’s life. The Teacher will not always be physically present when the Student encounters a challenging circumstance. The Student therefore cannot remain permanently dependent upon asking what the Teacher would tell them to do. The purpose of the training is to cultivate the Student’s mind so that the Student develops the calmness, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom needed to make wise decisions independently.

The same progression applies here: Calmness -> Mindfulness -> Concentration -> Wisdom. The Teacher helps the Student learn how to develop this mind. Eventually, the Student needs to be able to bring the mind to calmness, practice mindfulness, establish concentration, access wisdom, and make wise decisions wherever they happen to be. The Teacher points the way, but the cultivated wisdom within the Student’s mind becomes what protects and guides the Student throughout life.

Life Partners, Friends, and Other Adult Relationships

The same Teaching applies to life partners, friends, siblings, parents of adult children, coworkers, and other adult relationships. Before sharing personal advice, the Practitioner determines whether the other person is actually interested in receiving it. If someone asks, “Can I get your advice?” or “What do you think I should do?” then the person has expressed interest. When guidance is requested, an open door exists for sharing what is understood. If the person has not indicated interest, there is no wise reason to assume they want someone else to direct their decisions.

This does not mean that adults never communicate concerns or discuss matters that affect one another. A life partner might certainly discuss something that directly affects the shared household or relationship. Friends could discuss circumstances involving both of them. Family members might choose to communicate about shared matters. Coworkers might choose to discuss decisions affecting work performed together. But discussing something that affects one’s own participation is different from inserting unsolicited guidance into another adult’s personal decision-making. The Practitioner remains the decision-maker regarding what they themselves will participate in, what actions they will take, or whether they will remain involved in a particular circumstance. They do not need to control the other person in order to make wise decisions about their own participation.

When an adult asks for guidance, an open door exists for sharing what is understood. Once it has been shared, however, there is no need to convince the person. There is no need to repeat the same advice until they agree. There is no need to become irritated when they choose something different. There is no need to say, “I told you so,” if an undesirable result later occurs. The other being needs the freedom of their own decisions so that they can experience the results of those decisions and cultivate wisdom for improvement in life.

Their Life -> Their Decisions -> Their Results.

This Teaching does not mean that the Practitioner becomes uncaring or indifferent. It means that care is no longer mixed with attempts to control another being. The Practitioner can be sincerely interested in the other person’s welfare while understanding that the other being is living their own life and developing their own wisdom through their own decisions and results.

Boundaries and Harmonious Relationships

The term “boundaries” is commonly used in relationships in different ways. Sometimes it refers to conditions placed upon another person regarding what they may or may not say, do, or decide. A person might say, “You cannot speak to me that way”, “You are not allowed to do that”, “You need to treat me this way”, or “If you are going to be in my life, you need to behave according to these conditions”. At other times, the word “boundary” is used to describe a person’s decision regarding their own participation, such as deciding to discontinue a conversation, leave a circumstance, or no longer participate in a relationship. These two approaches are significantly different.

When a boundary establishes conditions for another being’s conduct and the Practitioner expects the other person to comply, it becomes another way for the unEnlightened mind to establish expectations regarding how another being should conduct themselves. The other being, however, remains the decision-maker of their own life. They choose whether to speak kindly or harshly, behave wisely or unwisely, participate in a relationship wholesomely or unwholesomely, and follow or disregard what another person prefers. Establishing conditions for another person’s conduct does not give the Practitioner control over that person’s mind or decisions. Instead, it creates an expectation within the Practitioner’s own mind that will produce discontentedness when the other person decides differently.

When a boundary is used as an attempt to determine how another being must behave so that the Practitioner can remain happy, the underlying issue is craving/desire/attachment. The mind has established a condition: “For me to be happy, you need to behave this way”. The person’s happiness has therefore become dependent upon another being fulfilling an expectation. If the other person does what the mind desires, the Practitioner may experience a conditioned pleasant feeling. If the other person does not comply, anger, irritation, disappointment, resentment, or another conditioned painful feeling arises. The mind may then increase the pressure, become more forceful, repeat the demand, threaten consequences, withdraw affection, or attempt some other means of obtaining compliance. What may have begun as an attempt to create happiness can therefore become another method through which the unEnlightened mind attempts to get another being to conduct themselves according to its desires.

This does not lead to harmonious relationships because harmony cannot depend upon controlling the conduct of another being. A relationship based on boundaries that establish expectations for another being’s conduct can therefore never produce genuine harmony because the Practitioner’s peacefulness remains dependent upon the other person behaving according to the Practitioner’s desires. If the Practitioner needs another person to speak, act, decide, or participate according to predetermined conditions in order for the Practitioner to remain happy, then the mind has not yet developed the ability to remain peaceful when another being exercises their own freedom to decide. The relationship may appear harmonious while the other person complies, but that harmony remains conditional. The moment the other person decides differently, the craving becomes exposed and discontentedness arises. The Practitioner has therefore not eliminated the cause of the problem; the external circumstances have merely been arranged temporarily in a way that does not disturb the craving.

A wiser approach is for the Practitioner to make decisions regarding their own participation rather than attempting to establish conditions governing another person’s behavior. The Practitioner does not need to say, “You are not allowed to yell at me,” because the other person is capable of deciding whether they will yell or not. Instead, the Practitioner recognizes: “If this conversation becomes unwholesome, I remain the decision-maker regarding whether I continue participating in the conversation”. The Practitioner is not attempting to control the other person’s speech. They are deciding what they themselves will do. Likewise, rather than saying, “You cannot continue behaving this way if you are going to be my friend,” the Practitioner remains the decision-maker regarding whether continuing participation in that friendship is wise. The other being remains the decision-maker regarding their own conduct, while the Practitioner remains the decision-maker regarding their own participation.

This distinction is important because changing one’s own participation does not require anger, resentment, hostility, or an expectation that another being change. A Practitioner might determine that continued participation in a particular relationship, conversation, activity, or circumstance is unwise and choose to discontinue participation. That decision can be made peacefully. The Practitioner does not need the other person to agree with the decision, understand the decision, approve of the decision, or change their conduct before the Practitioner can proceed. Each being continues to make their own decisions and experience the results of those decisions. Their Life -> Their Decisions -> Their Results. The Practitioner applies the same understanding to themselves: My Life -> My Decisions -> My Results.

Ending a relationship is therefore not necessarily aversion. The same outward decision can arise either from a mind attempting to escape its own conditioned painful feelings or from a peaceful mind making a wise decision regarding its own participation.

This approach also prevents the Practitioner from confusing wise decision-making with an attempt to control another being. Suppose a person repeatedly speaks harshly during conversations. The Practitioner might choose to explain once, calmly and at the proper time, that they prefer discussions to remain peaceful and respectful. That is communication. But if the other person continues speaking harshly, the Practitioner does not need to pressure the person, become forceful, argue about how they “must” communicate, or establish increasingly severe expectations in an attempt to force compliance under the label of a boundary. The Practitioner determines whether continuing the conversation is wise. Where continued participation is unwise, the conversation may end and resume later if circumstances become more conducive to wholesome and wise communication. The action is directed toward the Practitioner’s own conduct, not toward controlling the other person’s conduct, which is what occurs when a boundary is used to establish conditions that another being is expected to follow.

This becomes especially important because relationships are impermanent. People change. Circumstances change. A person who communicates wisely today may communicate unwisely tomorrow. A person who agrees with us in one circumstance may disagree in another. A child develops into an adult. A friendship changes. A life partnership changes. Employment changes. Health changes. Knowledge changes. Understanding changes. If the mind attempts to create permanent security by establishing conditions that everyone else must follow, it is attempting to make impermanent beings and impermanent circumstances function according to its desires. That effort cannot provide lasting peace because reality will eventually change.

The Practitioner is instead training the mind to develop wisdom regarding each circumstance as it arises. They can communicate wisely, share information, explain likely results, express a preference, change their participation, leave a circumstance, or discontinue involvement when wisdom determines that doing so is appropriate. None of these decisions require the Practitioner to place expectations upon another being or establish conditions that another being is expected to follow. The important question is not, “How do I establish conditions that will make this person behave the way I want?” The more useful question is, “Given the decisions this person is making, what is the wisest decision for me regarding my own participation while maintaining a peaceful, calm, serene, and content mind with joy?”

This distinction becomes particularly important when harm is present. Not attempting to control another being does not mean that a Practitioner remains in a circumstance where harm is occurring. A wise response to harmful conduct may involve ending participation, leaving the circumstance, seeking assistance, protecting the physical body, protecting another being, or another response appropriate to the circumstances. The difference is that these actions are decisions regarding what the Practitioner will do, rather than expectations that another being must behave according to the Practitioner’s desires. The Practitioner can therefore respond wisely to harm while continuing to understand that eliminating discontentedness involves training and transforming their own mind.

Guidance Without Attachment

True Love does not require obedience. True Love is an unconditioned mental quality of genuine interest in seeing all beings be well, without judging whether they deserve love and without wanting or expecting anything from them. If the Practitioner genuinely cares about another being, they can remain interested in that person’s welfare while still recognizing that the other person is their own decision-maker. Love does not need another person to choose what you would choose. Love does not require agreement. Care does not require compliance. Wisdom does not need to be forced upon another person and it cannot be forced upon another. If wisdom is to be developed, the individual needs to decide they would like to learn and then choose to cultivate the needed wisdom. It is impossible to force someone to cultivate wisdom, so why try?

When someone is interested in guidance, you might decide to share it generously. When someone is not interested, there is no reason to attempt to force it upon them. When someone listens to your guidance and ultimately chooses differently, that remains their decision. If your own mind becomes disturbed because they chose differently, the Red Light is showing you where the work needs to occur within your own mind. The work is not to become more persuasive. The work is not to start an argument. The work is not to recruit other people to help convince them. The work is to identify and eliminate the craving that causes your own mind to want another being to behave according to your desires.

This becomes especially important with those closest to us because attachment is often strongest in those relationships. The mind may incorrectly conclude that closeness creates greater justification for control. A person may think, “But this is my child,” “This is my partner,” “This is my family member,” or “This is my Student,” as though the nature of the relationship changes the fact that the other being has their own mind and makes their own decisions. In reality, close relationships often provide some of the clearest opportunities for observing attachment because the mind tends to have stronger wants and expectations regarding people it considers especially important.

The Practitioner who learns to recognize these patterns can begin developing love without attachment. They can care deeply while recognizing another being needs to make their own decisions. They can share wisdom when there is interest expressed by the other person without wanting the wisdom to be followed. They can remain available for questions without pushing themselves into another person’s life. They can recognize that another being may need to experience the results of their own decisions in order to cultivate wisdom. They can also make wise decisions about their own participation in a relationship without attempting to control what the other person does.

A useful question for the Practitioner to consider is simple: You do not like it when people attempt to control you, so why would another being enjoy you attempting to control them? This question can expose the imbalance created by ego. The mind may consider its own attempts to control as reasonable while disliking identical conduct when directed toward itself. Seeing this clearly helps the Practitioner develop greater humility and wisdom within relationships.

Harmony in relationships becomes increasingly possible when each being is recognized as the decision-maker of their own life. Guidance can be shared when it is solicited and the person is genuinely interested. Wisdom can be explained. Questions can be answered. Concerns involving one’s own participation can be discussed. But the Practitioner does not attempt to convince, persuade, influence, pressure, or control another being’s decision. Each being makes their own decisions, each being experiences the results, and each being has the opportunity to cultivate wisdom through that process.

The Practitioner continues training their own mind.

In the next chapter, we will examine what commonly occurs when the mind has not yet developed this understanding. When another being does not behave according to what the mind wants, craving can develop into irritation, anger, resentment, and ill will. Understanding these mental states and learning how to eliminate them is another essential part of developing harmonious relationships.