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.
The dilemma of anger
I have a question for the more experienced Buddhist, but other views from 'newer' Buddhists and people from different religions, or non religious people are also welcome.
A personal dilemma of mine, and probaly a dilemma in the West is anger.
We often have the idea that anger can be a constructive thing. It makes points clear on injust behaviour, you can express fealings with it and the other person can probaly change his behaviour and learn from it.
But anger can be a very bad thing, because it only acts upon the form of problems and does not always view/solve the causes of problems. A clear mind can get lost, from anger comes rage and even hatred. It can make things even worse.
Some buddhist visions say anger is therefore a bad thing and destroyes a clear mind and all the positive energy. But there are other buddhist visions (the Dalai Lama) that states that anger through the vision of compassion towards the wrongdo'er can be a good thing. You have to feal sorry for the fact that the wrongdo'er is not capable of good behaviour and acts upon frustration and his own anger for instance.
What would be your opinion or statement? Do you recognize the dilemma yourself? Can anger be a good thing to practice compassion for instance?
A personal dilemma of mine, and probaly a dilemma in the West is anger.
We often have the idea that anger can be a constructive thing. It makes points clear on injust behaviour, you can express fealings with it and the other person can probaly change his behaviour and learn from it.
But anger can be a very bad thing, because it only acts upon the form of problems and does not always view/solve the causes of problems. A clear mind can get lost, from anger comes rage and even hatred. It can make things even worse.
Some buddhist visions say anger is therefore a bad thing and destroyes a clear mind and all the positive energy. But there are other buddhist visions (the Dalai Lama) that states that anger through the vision of compassion towards the wrongdo'er can be a good thing. You have to feal sorry for the fact that the wrongdo'er is not capable of good behaviour and acts upon frustration and his own anger for instance.
What would be your opinion or statement? Do you recognize the dilemma yourself? Can anger be a good thing to practice compassion for instance?
0
Comments
An emotion as strong as anger can only distort the thinking of the mind, and no way helps us achieve our Buddha nature.
I believe that anger with the intent of compassion doesn't make very much sense to me and i see it as an excuse.
there may be a bit of truth towards some anger having an underlying theme of compassion, but ultimately i would see it as an unskillful action, and would not recommend it.
there are much more compassionate ways of showing compassion. haha.
that is my two cents!
Anger is the desire to attack without consideration or mercy. It is a type of mental error. It comes from the belief in the need to forgo careful thought and go straight into presumptive insistence, force - break something.
On the other hand, and perhaps what Dalai Lama had in mind is that a show of anger is often necessary for the sake of an animal (or person behaving like one). The display of anger instills the idea of grievous importance in the viewer and thus communicates. I know from experience that the mere display for the purpose of communication can tempt the real presumptive feeling, which should be strongly avoided. So even the show of anger is a bit dangerous and should be used sparingly.
Anger can only be considered "good" when it leads to a greater harmony than any other option. The only time I have ever known anger to be my wiser option was when I was directly teaching my own students why they did not want to go there. It only takes one display. Actual anger is never the wiser course.
I suspect "anger through the vision of compassion" is a presumptive error in itself. I would have to discuss such a thought with him directly. I don't "envision" it.
I mean, yes I can feel "sorry" for someone who acts on anger. But that doesn't mean I view the anger as "good". Anger is still something we need to release, so while I can certainly recognize it as the root of many negative human actions, it doesn't mean I intend to classify it as "good".
If I say something is "good" I'm essentially calling it acceptable at the same time. I don't think I'd ever classify anger as "acceptable," because that's when I'm going to start making exceptions to the rules for myself as well. Anger is not acceptable in my life. Does it happen? Yes. But because it isn't acceptable to me, I make that much more of a point to allow it to fall away as best I can.
I haven't really answered your question I'm afraid, I'm just talking on the point I suppose :P
But there are many things you CANNOT do with a clouded mind.
You can use whatever intensity you want, or even shout and scream with a clear mind. Whatever is required for a particular situation.
So beside creating suffering, confusion etc... there is no point to anger.
The negative aspects of anger:
1. Anger confuses the points, as people respond emotionally to our anger, rather than thoughtfully.
2. The feelings expressed when angry drive a wedge between us and others.
3. When angry, we often say things that we would otherwise never say (and are better left unsaid).
4. Other people are less likely to see your point of view, and less likely to change or learn when we get angry (unless the target is a small, frightened child who we can easily terrorize into behaving).
5. Anger reinforces the habit of getting angry. Thus, it creates negative karma.
6. Anger has to have a target (YOU "made" me get angry) ... we give away our power when we blame others for our own emotions.
7. Anger has subtle effects on our body and our health, and can be a factor in creating health problems and the breakdown of body systems.
8. Despite the fact that we feel more powerful when we are angry, we are actually less effective, less powerful, less in-control.
The positive aspects of anger:
1. Aw gee ... I never liked that vase your mom gave me anyway ... where's the broom?
Good thing it dimminishes with practice over time...
we have to not stifle our anger because anger is good
thich naht hanh says we should embrace our anger, treat it like a mother treats a child
but at the same time be careful to not let it out of balance, and act foolishly
Thanks for the quote of Buddha federica and thank you FoibleFull for the remarks about anger.
Perhaps I quoted his Holiness wrong.
From my own translation of the book Patience (Dutch version: Geduld) the Dalai Lama states (2009);
According to the buddhist psychology hatred is one of the worst disrupting emotions. The Tibetan word for this is 'zhe dang', wich in Dutch can both be translated in 'woede' and 'haat', because 'woede' (anger) can be a looked on a positive way. From my point of view it has to be translated in 'haat' (hate) because 'woede' can be looked upon in a positive way in Dutch. For instance when from this anger becomes compassion and when it formes a katalysator for a positive way of acting.
It's hard to quote it perfectly. I believe anger and compassion are ment by this as two seperate things. It should not be mixed. From a certain anger people should tend to transform it in to compassion and act in a positive way. I think that's what he meant.
I will probaly read the comments once more, but I think the discussionpoint of Drop is interesting:
I am a bachelor student and I often did group session where we had to discuss problems and solutions of a surtain case. Some people where not descent and would not give other people their change to say something, or to be a part of the process. Their wasn't always times to discuss someones behaviour and not all the people are willing to listen to descent, controlled feedback. You can't quit these groups, if you got a problem, you had to speak about it. But like I said, some people are not tend to be open for feedback.
A disappointed or angry face when beieng interrupted for instance can make things perfectly clear, people are more tend to listen from that moment, also due the social control and norm from the rest of the group. After that you can give feedback in a descent way. An angry face can be important in some forms of non-verbal communication from my point of view, but with the right intentions.
It's very difficult to think about the right solution in these contexts. But I always try to work for the best, the groups welness and also the 'wrongdo'ers' wellness and I believe an angry face, a signal might be a positive thing to make points clear. But you have to start a descent conversation without anger afterwards, with compassion in mind.
The challenge is to in the midst of all the discomfort and pressure to act of anger to be level headed. It is almost like the in breath of tonglen and that might be a good idea to try to switch on the outbreath to wishing relief and happiness to yourself and the one you are angry at.
The challenge is to have a non-violent listening communication with the one you are angry at and to speak your heart without getting tricky about 'inflicting damage'.
Anger inspires aggressiveness but it also inspires foolishness, blindness, and corruption.
Extreme aggressiveness can be called up without anger (as someone already pointed out). The advice to use anger is to presume the person to be an animal and will cause them to become one.
And that's the problem, it is often something that has been learned from a young age and it is often difficult to unlearn in a society where it is socially acceptable to show your fealings. That's why it is also a personal issue for me.
Since a few weaks I try to observe and experience things with a clear mind, and I try to overcome agitation and angry fealings with a descent, calm and neutral conversation, without condemning people or get angry at them. I try to understand for instance the reasons why people behave in a surtain way. I try to feal more compassioned.
It's hard and something that I have to practice on.
Does anyone have tips to overcome a certain agitation, frustration or anger? I can give personal examples if nessary.
It is from that answer, all rationality, ethics, morality, advice springs. Without that answer, nothing can be said to be wise.
That's indeed the right question to ask before every deed, but I wonder how do I overcome the automatic fealing of anger. How do I suppress it in a healthy way for instance.
If we compare anger to a fire, then , anger should be the fire that heats our house in the middle of the harsh winter. For this fire, it should be kept in the reasonable limits, just to keep us warm.
If this fire is not kept within those limits, the house could burn up in the middle of the harsh winter, and nothing is solved.
Get wut I'm sayin' ?
(if you don't, this means I suc...stink at logics
Keep focus upon the goal and purpose. Delight in progress toward it and anger will not be known to you.
That will remind me of where I live -> Romania !
There is no real "feeling" of anger, it only lives in the half light. It is the spin given neutral physical sensation by thought.
We learn from the dhamma to be skillful through mindfulness and equanimity. To be balanced in all things. Wise. To harness loving kindness, and to be compassionate in our interactions with others and with ourselves too.
I will give you one piece of advice that I urge you to take. Read Pema Chodron's books. "Don't Bite the Hook" is awesome, and "When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times" is another good one, but quite frankly, you will encounter her wise instruction on handling "negative emotions" in any of them...you could opt to give the "Pocket Reader" (the little Shambhala book) a go for very little money, and it is a nice one to keep bedside or to take with you on a walk.
You see, anger is not really the problem. It is a terminal symptom, but it is one that diminishes both in quantity and intensity with patient practice. There are times when anger "happens" but it is how we respond to it that counts. Yes...anger CAN be positive, it CAN be compassionate! If we notice that a child is being harmed by someone, it is appropriate and constructive...our anger tells us "Do something about this!" It can call us to take positive action--perhaps even to take better care of ourselves!
One thing is for sure. The only way to "kill" anger is to let go of anger, never by trying to control it or stifle it. You cannot cease anger anymore than you can stop the emotions of "surprise" or "joy." What you can do is change how you work with anger.
Jeffery's advice is quite sound. Learning to observe your anger is the key...be a scientist observing a phenomena. We do this in sitting practice with an itch. Instead of just scratching it, sit with it. Don't give in. Notice that it stops after a while if you are patient. Where did the "itch" go? Where did it come from? It is similar to most of the anger we feel.
thanks
For example, I once saw a Zen Master monk disciplining a younger monk. There was a guy in the temple working on the plumbing. The young monk was told by the master to watch the guy and make sure he does the job right, etc. But the monk did not do that. He was getting in the car with some other monk to go to the store or something and they were driving away. The Zen Master monk saw this and came running out screaming at the top of his lungs "Hey monk, what the hell are you doing!!!" The young monk said he was going to the store. Then the Zen Master shouted "I told you to stay here and watch that guy!!!!" The monk was like "Umm, uhh" Then the Zen Master shouted at the monk again "That guy is in the temple smoking a fucking cigar!!!" The monk ran inside scared shitless, LOL.
I thought it was pretty funny though because I know he was not actually angry, but he appeared to the young monk as being very angry. But, he was not actually angry. The master showed anger for the benefit of the monk, out of compassion. This sort of anger can be beneficial IMO
the result of anger on yourself...
If you had an unmindful moment and got angry at any point recently, chances are it will come back during a meditation, where it should be easier to observe.
btw I realize that in most cases, you have to take "you" very seriously to ever get angry...
My first teacher (Samu Sunim) would yell at me in apparent disgust. I thought he hated me.
A flash of anger then coolness only if you let it be.
Hello Richard,
I am certainly not insistent upon the term "scientist" if it displeases you, and I never meant for it to confuse newer folks. Yes, I am happy to describe this for you, and look forward to receiving your thoughts in Return.
First, it is not at all necessary to be "absorbed" by anger while experiencing angry feelings. Emotions originate mainly in the limbic system of the brain, in particular, in the amygdala. Based on how we are conditioned to react to emotions that arise (and unfortunately, part of this is genetic as well), it is indeed common to allow lower brain functions to override cortical operations, to the point where that emotion dominates our behavior. Hence...we become "absorbed" by it.
But people can and do learn with practice, how to stay present with an emotion without allowing it to override cortical operations. There are many studies that show through fMRI how meditation literally, physically changes the brain in this way, by increasing myelinated nerve channels between areas of the brain, and I would be happy to share these with you. In essence, advanced practitioners are not slaves to their emotions...these emotions can be felt, observed, and communicated to others. They can be managed skillfully. In essence, one doesn't have to turn their compassion "off" in order to have their anger turned "on." It is entirely possible to have both at your disposal.
I suppose what I'd wish to tell people new to the path is this: The mind is like a wild horse that needs to be tamed. Thus our sitting practice (along with a whole host of other mindfulness practices) serve to help us do precisely that..train the mind. As the title of Sakyong Mipham's exceptional book suggests, the goal is the "Turn the Mind into an Ally" instead of a nemesis. When the mind is your ally, then anger is your ally too if we are careful enough to observe what is really going on.
You are speaking a different language but using the same words. The result is that you propose many arguable topics in a single paragraph yet continue to build an argument upon the assumed premise.
I'm sure you are not aware, but what you are advertising was once called Satanism. It is the art of using the weaknesses of people against them so as to rule and control them. In such a governing style, all misbehavior is preferred as it inspires counter misbehavior and keeps the masses weak and in futile struggle against each other while being carefully manipulated from above to provide greater authority and isolation from interference. It is a protection of the ruling "ego" of a society, its aristocracy and government.
In your paradigm, you present the "mind" as something to be governed, but by what/whom? You suggest that the mind includes the emotions within and "you" are above your mind. So who are "you"? I suspect you would say, "the consciousness", but how is the consciousness not merely another aspect of the mind? So who is it that is actually governing the mind but another portion thereof? What portion would that be? What purpose does it ultimately serve by inspiring and converting "natural" error/sin into friend and "ally". It is called the "ego" in Buddhism or "Azazel" in Hebrew and "Satan" in Christianity.
Buddhism proposes that such natural errors be understood until they are no longer a part of the process. It proposes that the mind, citta, teaches the emotions, vedana, to not make such error in the first place. Of course to accept that such errors occur is essential to begin the exercise, but to accept that they are good and should occur is not Buddhism nor a path to nirvana except for that very tiny exclusive portion of the mind that rides above the conflict, warring, and chaos providing fuel via the turmoil below it (aristocracy and its government).
You propose that the violent errors "naturally" occurring beneath "us" are good and should be used. Such is NOT Buddhism (although is designed into Secular-Judaism).
I must say I have absolutely no bloody idea what you are talking about.:-/
This is nonsense, and the points above are purely a straw argument anyway. You are making leaps into some strange Machiavellian social commentary that I did not suggest (nor would I ever support).
I was sharing a simple fact: As mammals, we have emotions that are ingrained genetically within our bodies; emotions that have evolved over millions of years that have led to our survival as a species. I offer this without a value judgment. It is a simple reality.
I am talking about basic neuroscience, not social engineering. Anger arises naturally within H. sapien through the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis (HPA axis). In essence, to be alive as a human being is to experience anger. Fear. Surprise. Joy. There is no eliminating these emotions aside from death, only our trained attachment to them can be ended and snuffed out. Anger is chemical and the way it is experienced and arises in our behavior is through conditioned response...and the good news is that conditioning can be re-trained.
Here is a concept for you to consider. There is only so much working memory capacity in the human brain. When we are mindful (when we are "in the zone" and totally present with whatever we are engaged in), we are leveraging the entire capacity of our working memory...our attention; our focus). However, if we allow lower limbic system emotions such as fear or anger to occupy our mind--if we allow an emotion with negative valence to occupy us, they we have very little working memory remaining to attend to anything else that might prove wiser. That is what grasping onto an emotion will cause to happen within us. This is why our goal is to "kill anger" though rigorous training--through metta, compassion. Although the goal is to "go beyond" all emotions, all teachers will tell you that positive emotions (joy and compassion for others) does not crush our ability to be mindful. First Jhana arises with positive emotion. Concentration training so often reveals positive emotion. However, emotions with negative valence WILL absolutely crush mindfulness and concentration if we are not watchful, which is why we have to deal with anger skillfully when it arises. and arise it will my friend!
So the point being made has nothing to do with controlling other people, it has to do with being skillful within oneself, and our sitting practice serves to help us in this manner...it is a way of training things like attention, concentration, loving kindness. To reduce anger and fear through the sublime abidings will allow bodhicitta to surface.
I am a borrowed body that will return to feed the worms someday. "I" am impermanence. May I suggest separating simple communication from false epistemological conclusion. When I use the words "You" or "Me" here it is not a commentary on anatta. The human mind is malleable and trainable. All masters of Buddhism within all traditions teach this.
I agree entirely with you that the point of training citta is for tranquility and equanimity to prevent the defilements and hindrances from arising in the first place. Yes! That is certainly correct. You error by suggesting that I believe anger is "good." Instead, I am suggesting it is inevitable. Given that it is inevitable, it just might be a good concept to work with in our lives. To be cautious, skillful observers of anger arising, and then watching anger falling away. The best way to have anger molt away quickly is to understand what is going on at the root of it. Such understanding makes it easier for it to recede quicker. This is what I mean by keeping compassion "turned on". When we refocus on having compassion for ourselves, then anger is likely to dissipate or recede.
Although I cannot comment on where you are in your practice, I am not yet a Buddha (please don't be shocked!). Therefore, anger still happens to me! Hindrances still arise every time I sit (especially sloth and torpor...Damn you sloth and torpor!:o), and the defilements still arise. Anyone else ever have thoughts about food or sex arise while sitting? I sure have (raises hand). I've been a Buddhist for 20 years now and have seen immense progress, but mainly by merit of developing great humility for all I've yet to accomplish. It all proves that the Buddha really knew what he was talking about, wouldn't you concur?
As for the rest of your post (secular Judaism? Satanism?) I am sorry to say that none of it makes any sense to me whatsoever.
I wish you well friend!
This is well said, and I have no particular issue with "scientist" except that it does involve certain philosophical assumptions. The statement that emotions originate in the limbic system for instance is, IMV, reductionistic. I am not denying that the experience of emotion is not-other than the very brain phenomena you describe, but I would say these "Inner" and "outer" dimensions are two sides of one coin and one is not reducible to the other. There seems to be two extremes around this subject. On the one hand there is an Idealism that collapses physical processes into "Mind", and on the other hand there is a Materialism that collapses experienced thought and so forth into physical processes, along with a whole train of evolutionary determinism. One is not really primary to the other. "Inner" and "outer" co-arise.
Suffering is like "this". The Dharma has given me tools and understanding that are tailored to achieve its ends. There has been enough realization of this end (in a Zen Context) to have confidence in it.
There is definitely plenty of room for creativity and exploration of different skillfull means. In fact a friend recently said there may be a Dharma for every practitioner, and he is not a wishy washy fellow.
As I stated, your word usage inspires arguable issues. But it seems the following words (underlined) can't be interpreted, even by me, as anything but an advertising for using anger. The problem is that when such a philosophy is carried to the heights of national or world issues, it becomes, "use the anger of the women against the men; use the anger of the blacks against the whites; use the anger of the atheists against the Christians; use the anger of the Americans against the Iraqis,... endless warring so as to keep others occupied, allowing those who inspire such anger to be free and in relative Heaven (the "First Morning Star" of how to obtain and rule in Heaven).
The philosophies about how to manage a one's own mind are the philosophies that govern nations. Such has been true for 6000 years or more. The only real distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is the issue of usery.
Your following underlined statements directly recommend usery;
It is presumption that such is what led to the survival. "Survival of the fitted" overrules "Survival of the fittest".
In every struggle to survive there are attributes acquired that work against the survival as well as those that act for it. The only cause of the survival was that those for it slightly out weighed those against it. It is a dangerously false presumption to suggest that all acquired attributes were responsible for the survival. The probability of that is zero unless you deem the human creature to be absolute perfection already, in which case, why are you trying to teach him anything. He was not taught those things millions of years ago.
That is like saying that the slowness and crashing of your PC arises from the hardware and to run a PC is to crash it. Granted, when dealing with companies like Microsoft, such might well be the norm, but it is hardly a reflection of Truth.
The physical brain is affected by the mind within as well a the mind being affected by the physical brain. Add chemicals and you will cause mental effects. Alter mental strategums and you will cause chemical traces and alterations. It is NOT an issue of the brain chemically causing the mental attributes and it cannot be allowed as merely the mind reigning over the physical brain either. Anger is NOT a chemical (nor is love).
Your statements and implications (and very common public promotion) is that "because the brain itself naturally causes anger (which it doesn't) we must accept anger as a survival tactic given through the wisdom of nature."
But anger is not a wisdom given. It is a presumption defaulted to when there wasn't enough thinking allowed yet obstinate desire present, for whatever reason.
In your paradigm, you "objectize" emotions as though they were parts of the brain that are waiting to jump into play. Such is a materialistic and naive construct.
Emotions are deduction effects of the "lower mind", the "vedana" or what you have learned as "the lymbic system". When you learn to deduce properly, the emotions do not exist at all within you. If you chemically break the brain that you have purified with training, you can cause false or erroneous deduction to occur again and thus restore your insanity. But you are not enabling or disabling emotions. You are creating or preventing very tempting, normal, false deduction == emotion.
There is a reason the "negative emotions" cause the problems and the "positive emotions" add to the solutions. It is because what added was called positive and what detracted was called negative.
The reason the bad deductions cause negative, the bad, is because they presume a preferred direction of action to take. They deduce a direction to promote without having all of the facts. They are exactly identical to an activist group advocating a bill in congress. Just as the activist group has no understanding of international affairs beyond its ability to see, the limbic deductions have no means to incorporate higher affairs of mental balance within their naive promotions. ALL emotions are naive. The mind is the gate to allow the "positive" emotions that happen to allow for balance of mind and action through while teaching inwardly to not "storm congress" with bills that only cause more harm than good.
Thus all of this certainly has to do with controlling other people from above. What works for the individual will work for the overall entity. Suppressing rather than teaching is what gets both individuals as well as governments in serious trouble.
Encouraging the negative emotions within oneself or within the nation has the exact same effect. They are "negative" because they prevent sanity yet allow for someone outside the struggle to reign. When you promote that your emotions are not a part of you but something for you to reign over, you are taking the position of the aristocrat socialist dominating the common masses.
This strategy is used so as to always use the opposite emotion so as to counter and deflect the unpreferred. Using opposition in an attempt to occupy the masses, your emotions, which then allows you to be free above it all, but as you said, lacking in brain power.
I would recommend not thinking of your "self" or "you" as a body at all. You are an "effort" once called a "spirit" and how impermanent you are is up to you. Whether you are truly impermanent is not something to conclude, but merely to not fear.
It certainly does. I have been amazed at how much the founders of the great movements and philosophies throughout thousands of years human struggle really understood. But seriously disappointed at seeing how little progress has really been made (answering your inquiry concerning at what point I am at.
Thank you TexasHermit
ps: Drop is a bit of a troll sometimes i'm afraid
Thank you Patbb,
Apparently, in addition to making arguments based on nonsense assumptions, I am also a Satanist. Not only any Satanist mind you, but one who is "unaware" that he is serving the dark Lord.
Okay then, if you say so. Have a good night sir.
So do others!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5sUfV1Mi7w&feature=player_embedded
I appreciate the directness of the ideas you offer here, I find them to be very well said.