Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is there such a thing as rightful anger?
Lostie
Veteran
HOW should we put the anger to good use?
0
Comments
For example I am having trouble seeing today my corrective prescription is deteriorating. I could get more angry but what's the use? Might as well do what I can which is type this out.
may all sentient beings awaken and the healing come that is beyond the body.
Anger can be a message. The message may be that we need to pay attention to what is happening around us. The message may be a situation needs to change. The message may be that we need to take care of ourselves and not get too tired/hungry/etc. The message may be that it has nothing to do with us. And the message may be that we need to put it in perspective of impermanence.
Is there anything you can do about it? Can you address it or the person and bring about change?
Can you remove yourself until you have gained some clarity to properly deal with the situation...in some cases this is necessary.
What can you do?
Anger is neither good nor bad. It's how we utilize that energy that counts. Anger can be a tool to put compassion into action. I think righteous anger is compassionate anger.
Hi, Lostie! Long time no see--welcome back!
No, anger is never correct because it is a product or reaction from greed, aversion or delusion.
We justify anger in our minds, for example "They will understand better if I show anger" or "they caused anger". Anger continues to keep us bound to the results of of 'negative' karma and so enforces itself as "my personality" or as something unavoidable.
Anger in itself however is ultimately destructive....
Then someone approaches me and casually says "Just get a job, you bum" I may not say or do anything in response, since I contain myself. But I feel plenty of anger. Enough to where if I was not in control, chances are I would strike them, or at the very least go on a very long rant explaining everything to them. But no, I contain my anger, and use the energy from it to do something to prove them wrong. I want to succeed, and then rub their faces in it nice and deep, to the point where I might derive a sort of pleasure from it.
Anger is a part of the human psyche for a reason. It is dangerous to entirely ignore what makes us human, instead I opt for careful analysis and control. Rather than straight ignorance.
I am now resigned to the fact that some people see me as an obstacle and like to play chicken. Learned helplessness, apathy & tears relinquish anger in those moments of isolation, but that doesn't stop me from writing a letter about road safety or rallying the locals to protest against angry young men.
If you are lucky, anger can be useful. But only if you are lucky.
Any amount of anger just cloud the mind. Therefore your judgement is biased.
So you must be lucky so that the bias from your anger happen to direct you toward something useful.
Like a horse that is freaking out. If you are lucky, he'll run in the direction that you want.
But he's just as likely to run in the opposite direction and do damage.
Little anger or lots of anger is the same. It's just more obvious to recognize this fact when the anger is bigger.
But all negative emotional reactions are unskilful conditioned habit of the mind which bring suffering.
If you are angry at someone who hurt you, you are hurting yourself.
You could be having the best time of your life, completely and fully enjoying life and appreciating your life and everything in it, but you aren't, you are in your mind in the future or the past feeling angry about whatever happened...
You can't help it, it's a automatic reaction and behavior. This is why we train our mind and lose these automatic habits, freeing ourselves from the slavery of the conditioned mind...
If something can be done, why be angry?
If nothing can be done, why be angry?
If a situation demands and allows for an effective response then by all means respond, but getting angry in the process only causes emotional turmoil for oneself and results in a distorted assesment of the situation resulting in a distorted response.
My opinion is anger is an instictive emotion, but it is also afflictive. In a boxing fight for example, it would be better if you had a controlled sense of focus rather than anger which could lead to a foolish move. There are many many situations where anger lead to a negative result.
compassion is born of compassion.
anger is born of anger. but added on top of the compassion in your example.
having compassion for someone who suffer is separate from the anger and frustrations at the act of those who create suffering.
anger at the way things are, sadness at the way things are, despair at the way things are, all very similar.
Just add more suffering. this is relevant.
It's important that others will know what we stand for but equally, it's vital people understand what we won't stand for.
It's an appropriate emotion which should be used at the appropriate time.
Do not cling to anger or perpetuate it beyond reason.
Remain in control, and do not cling.
but when you are angry - and you're right to be angry - be angry.
while meditating: "equanimityyyyyy... it's just a sensation... equanimityyyyyy... but he did THIS TO ME!"
But anger is not a Dharma refuge. The sangha has recognized that anger is not the self and thus it is not anger. Like a parent who scolds. Not that barely any parents are enlightened.
I'm generally pretty opposed to tough love as in my experience it often doesn't arise out of concern for the receiver but out of frustration by the giver. It is possible though to express a strong stance or an act that appears angry in order to help someone see the light. Don't fool yourself though into thinking that means you can run around scolding people in the name of their best interest and think its all perfectly justified.
anger is always wrong because anger burns us if we can see anger is within us we can remind us 'we are not in the present moment'
because
if 'we are in the present moment' we know what we see is the 'effect' and there is a 'cause' for it
if so
we do not react (this always brings the wrong results)
but
we act with mindfully
Anger is neither good nor bad. It's what we do with it, how we use it, how we shape it or allow it to take shape, that's either skillful or unskillful. It's like money: just a tool for getting things done. The tool doesn't carry a value judgment with it, the tool just is. You can use it to either bludgeon someone with it, or to lift people up. It helps to know how to work with it before you pick it up, though. That's where skill comes in. Then when you're done using it, you put it down.
I've read stories about Zen roshis who use anger with certain students, when they think the student needs waking up or guiding. The roshi is in prefect control of his method, he's not ranting or hyperventilating. Rather, it's a momentary, controlled manifestation of anger to teach a specific lesson to a specific student. After wielding the tool, the roshi puts it back in the toolbox, and moves on, perfectly calm. There has been no suffering, only skillful means by a teacher, and learning, by the student.
Maybe there's a difference between Mahayana schools and other schools on this score. Anger doesn't burn us if we use it skillfully. A hot stove can burn us, or it can be used to cook a delicious meal. It's up to us to use skill to bring about a positive outcome.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from 'The Dalai Lama, A Policy of Kindness: An Anthology of Writings by and About the Dalai Lama'
Here's Tsem Tulku talking about equanimity and Divine anger. The part on anger starts at about 1:35
Anger arises when our expectations are not met. Whose fault is that? We would have fewer angry reactions if we had a better sense of our reality.
Realism doesn't eliminate disappointment, because we can never know how future circumstances play out, but anger as a gut reaction can be avoided by examining one's expectations, and whether they are based on realistic assumptions.
Maybe this can be learned and used towards being mindful and compassionate. I am a mere beginner :-) .
and then
we want (again we are burning) to do 'this or that'
for example:
check what would happen to us (anyone of us) while reading this post
if we are mindful we do not get angry (unskillful thought) so there is no burning
if not the 'feeling doesn't give us pleasure', what is it? burning
(both lust and anger burn us, but we do not see it unless we pay attention and try to see)
I think that the DL role is to be the leader but also the ambassador of Tibetan Buddhism.
Being the ambassador means that much of his work is addressed to lay Buddhist practitioner, but also to the general public.
The first step in the Buddhist path is to begin to become more mindful of our inner world. Which begin the process of becoming less reactive.
Therefore it would make sense to me that the Dalai Lama would be addressing the general public or the beginners with these kind of statements. Guiding them through the first step of the path, things they can actually begin to do immediately and see benefit in their life while avoiding the more obscure stuff which would likely scare people off since they wouldn't be able to understand them.
By being mindful (noticing when it arise) of anger and other negative reactions, we begin to create a space between the emotional reaction and the potentially harmful actions (shouting at someone, fueling the fire inside).
This open the door for equanimity toward the negative emotion to arise.
When equanimity is present in the face of the negative emotional reactions, it's only a matter of time before we let go of the reaction. realizing the futility and uselessness of such reaction. This is a kind of wisdom.
as in: If we were afraid of dogs, now we are not afraid of dogs anymore.
once this happened, we're not afraid of any dogs anymore. This reaction just doesn't come up when faced with the stimulus.
Then naturally, when this happened enough times, we don't have the fear of dog anymore, we lost the anger at mom, we lost the impatience waiting in line for a coffee, we lost the reaction to whatever our partner is doing that we use to find annoying...
Once this happened enough, we realize that all of them are all pretty much the same, all useless so it become much easier to let go of all of them.
You don't hear the DL talking about eradicating fetters to the general public or the lay practitioners much. And it make sense to me, getting into this territory requires a great deal of sustained effort and it is unlikely to be relevant or useful in any way to the general public.
And Mahayana seem to be very structured, systematically building very strong and solid foundations before beginning to approach more advanced concepts. I guess one of the reason can be to avoid wasting too much time on people misinterpretation things they have no basis to understand maybe..?
The comment I mentioned was in the context of being angry about injustice in the world, about problems in society, environmental issues, etc. He said, instead of being angry or frustrated, use that energy constructively to work towards change.
Have you watched Tsem Tulku's video? What do you think of his talk on "Divine anger"?
If there is a 'divine anger' which Tsem Tulku mentions, then isn't there a divine being? If so who or what is that devine being according to Tsem's sect?
I will look into it further as it sounds like that is what is implied (I keep meaning to study this too).