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 "healthy anger"? Constructive anger?
compassionate_warrior
Veteran
Is anger always bad, or can that energy be skillfully channelled into compassionate action? I remember HHDL saying that if you're angry or frustrated or sad at problems in the world, you can use those feelings as motivators to bring about positive change. A lifelong dharma student and psychologist I know says there is "healthy anger, and unhealthy anger, healthy sadness, unhealthy sadness.."(etc.). Is there a cultural taboo against anger in Buddhist cultures, that might be affecting our view? I've seen HHDL on film expressing righteous indignation (aka: anger) at the Chinese crackdown in the Tibetan regions after the 2008 protests. He didn't seem to have a problem with appropriate anger. Can anger sometimes be good, if it doesn't spin into rage ("unhealthy anger")? Is it a question of clinging to the emotion, vs. experiencing it, then letting it go? Lots of questions.
0
Comments
We just had this debate
Having slain what does one not sorrow?
What is the one thing, O Gotama,
Whose killing you approve?”
“Having slain anger, one sleeps soundly;
Having slain anger, one does not sorrow;
The killing of anger, O devata,
With its poisoned root and honeyed tip:
This is the killing the noble ones praise,
For having slain that, one does not sorrow.”
Samyata Nikaya I.VIII.71
Edit: Precisely as Vangelis posted. Thus saving me having to find the suitable reference. Thanks, Vangelis!
Its is a mind that arises from our self grasping Ignorance those who practise should subdue the mind and let compassion be their motivator.
ahimsa understood in a better way is : do no harm, unless as self-defense (yes, anatta, trilaksana and so on are required to understand ahimsa).
Wow, I was just about to post a similar thread.
A group of graduate students / social activists told me that "outrage" was essential to do good, and that outrage was the only way to find out who was "sincere" in their beliefs.
I thought that was kinda creepy and sad.
Is love and compassion insufficient to motivate and enact social change? Must there be some anger?
Love and compassion are great to motivate social change movements. But anger/outrage do happen; the world is full of outrageous situations. I don't think outrage should be a requirement, but it does happen, so why not harness it to motivate good works? Actually, I think compassion is underlying some people's sense of outrage at injustice and oppression.
Source: After the Ecstacy, the Laundry (Jack Kornfield)
Please give an example of what you perceive to be just 'anger', good anger and bad anger.
Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/162/8/901
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j38jt024771q5381/
Personally, I know that when I get angry, I find it difficult to remember things and notice that my mind is cloudy. The effects are instant and long-term and are akin to taking mind-altering drugs.
And this it why we need to be careful what we read. Personally, when I read about Buddhism, I only read texts written by scholar-monks or the sutta translations themselves and even then I have to be careful of who has done the translating.
Thank you. That wasn't too painful, was it?
This is not Buddha-dhamma. Anger is the result of an afflicted mind. A mind that is free of effluents is not afflicted with anger.
@federica, not at all. The sarcastic comments, rolled eyes, and telling me that what I say makes no sense at all makes me not want to explain things to you, though. It's a perfect example of not trying to understand what i'm saying, but instead try to make me look bad in order to inflate your own ego. That's what it is. There's so much ego around here.
We're all brothers and sisters here. We should act in compassion for each other and be mindful of our own faults. Why do you think I edit my posts so often?
Namaste
Wait, was there a miscommunication regarding the word "just"? Such as "just"="only" vs. "just"="righteous" ?
If there is a morally justified reason for the anger (e.g. as per the civil rights movement), then the anger has graciously alerted us to a legitimate problem. We can act on behalf of promoting the greater good then. But the anger must be dropped as a motivation, as a master that enslaves us, or else we will remain unenlightened.
If we find that after honest self-examination, we are angry for selfish or childish reasons, then we have become more aware of our cherished obstacles and are in a better position to remove them. Or else, we will remain unenlightened.
Another miscommunication which at times comes from all camps.
Guess we all have to work a little harder don't we to practice Right Speech?
Don't be Tetchy. If this is enlightenment, it doesn't suit you. I prefer you when you were just as deluded as the rest of us.
"Huge-grin-pat-on-the-back-how-about-a-cup-of-tea?" emoticon unavailable.
Emotions, on the other hand, are a different type of force. Negative emotions like anger can be deadly. It is because emotional actions don't show up like physical abuse, that people feel it's a safe (for them) form of aggression. I'm not sure if there truly is such a thing as righteous anger. Anger, like fire, can spread and cause total destruction if it gets out of control. There is also the danger that people will enjoy expressing anger and using it as an excuse to harm others. I've seen this happen- people who were never part of the group before are now welcomed in if they are willing to "throw stones" or provide more ammunition, or be willing to act out the group's aggression. Once the target is destroyed- the group again excludes the ones they used.
Anger is like a drug for some. Anger can be a gateway negative emotion that leads to hatred or vengeance. It will harm the person's consciousness. People can become addicted to feeling righteous or start to feel pleasure in hurting others. Anger can make them feel powerful. Anger can create cravings that people will seek to feed.
I share the OP's sadness over the injustice in the world. It's been with us since there were enough people to abuse and oppress one another.
I have to say that I would not get involved in any movement that was anger based. I would rather be a part of a group seeking positive change through truth. I think once people understand why something is unjust, there is a greater chance of them changing their behavior.
Sorry to go on so long. I hope that I didn't make anyone angry.
:hiding:
I'm not saying that we should never get upset or angry or fed up enough to take a stand. I'm just not sure enough people can indulge in anger without having it become too big to handle.
I just see a lot of anger building in the world. I'm pretty sure that some of the people doing the condemning that leads to bloodshed will feel righteous in their anger.
Maybe I'm going off topic or maybe I misread the OP's intended question.
Wait, is "outrage" distinct from anger? Or are we treating it as a subset? Because it's plausible that "outrage" is more of a precursor to anger. Furthermore, it's possible that each one of us may have different definitions of "outrage."
I believe that when something happens that we feel is incredible un-right, we experience a type of shock. Then, after this shock, we have to decide how to react.
Let me give two situations:
i) We see a family being denied service at a restaurant because of their race.
ii) We find out our next-door neighbor's wife and kids were all killed in a car crash due to heavy rains.
I would imagine feeling a type of shock ("outrage"?) hearing about both situations. The big difference is in the first situation we would typically search for who to blame, then get mad (anger) at the perpetrator. It's possible that more emotions (anger) will be directed at the perpetrator than compassion is towards the victims. In the second case, we would only have compassion, since there seems to be no perpetrator.
So to proceed fruitfully with this conversation, I think it's important to pin down a definition of "outrage", as well as to identify or invent a word to describe the "shock" I described above.
I've been around plenty of relatively minor racial incidents in my life, but they still make me mad, no matter the scale of the incident. But I never direct anger at the perp/s. I convert that energy into urgency to help the victim in whatever way is appropriate. In a situation such as the restaurant scene you mentioned, I might send a letter to the restaurant owner after the incident, but not an angry one. just because anger arises, doesn't mean we have to let it go out of control. As Cloud wisely said, "We recognize the anger, and let it go". Actually, depending on the situation, if it's a case of institutionalized injustice, I might just want to keep a little spark of that moral indignation around, to give me the energy to organize an effort to address the power structure involved. I think moral outrage and compassion go hand-in-hand sometimes.
I still think there is a distinction between "outrage" and anger, though. And I think effort can be entirely motivated by compassion. For example, if my neighbor's family dies, I would feel the desire to help him in some way. I might even begin doing some research on car safety, etc..
Finally, the problem with moral outrage is that, unless someone makes an effort to be mindful and skillful, often times the outrage overpowers the compassion and consequently much effort is put into harming the (supposed) perpetrators.
I've met many minority-rights activists of sorts, and some of them are among the most racist and hateful people I've ever met. Seriously.
So should "outrage" be reserved for the "professionals"? Should outrage have a label on it that says, "Don't try this at home"? Or "must be used with two parts of mindfulness"?
If you meet a group of social activists who are brimming with anger, would you try to convince them to have less anger (or even compassion) for the perpetrators?
If you have opposing forces that are in conflict due to anger with the others' position, it comes down to picking a side. Each side claims to be right.
If someone is offended by an individual (good or bad), are they entitled to punish them or seek revenge? Even if they had reason to be offended, should they gather others together to extract punishment? When does righteous anger become vengeance?
I have a hard time trusting negative emotions. My worst decisions resulted from negative emotions.