@alpine_thistle Yeah that thinking is compatible with what he says--he compared condemnation to a knife, a useful tool when used for one's own purposes (e.g. the abuser puts down his abusive beliefs, or the victim sets boundaries with the abuser) but a deadly weapon when used on another (e.g. the victim condemns the abuser, the abuser tries to corrode the victim's boundaries). And you can imagine what a Buddhist monk thinks of stabbing or slapping people xD Not so much that it's "wrong" so much as people are free to choose to do it, but have to accept the consequences which will be, among other things, their own suffering.

So the two conceptions of responses to abuse can exist side by side, and in fact Beopryun's discussion of having compassion and understanding for the other seems to have a lot in common with the function of sensemaking, or creating a coherent narrative, in the psychology of abuse recovery. The role of morality is fundamentally different in the two schools of thought, though.