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?
Someone suggested that outrage is a precursor to anger. that's interesting. So before anger has arisen, there's a sense of outrage. So if we can stop at the outrage, without progressing to anger, we can act skillfully.
*whew* "When does righteous anger become vengeance?" Well the whole idea is to stop the anger before it bubbles over. With mindfulness, you notice it arising, and convert it into compassionate action. I get the sense that most people when they hear the word "anger" picture red-faced people screaming and getting out of control. That's an extreme state, and it's not at all what I picture when I think of my own anger or outrage. Oh well. I still think some of us are talking apples and oranges, here.
I have a hard time trusting negative emotions. My worst decisions resulted from negative emotions.
One shouldn't make decisions from negative emotions. One waits until one has calmed down before making a decision. Or one transforms the negative emotion into something positive.
It was Compassionate Warrior who said a dharma friend was a psychologist and spoke of "healthy anger". Maybe we should see if he can find out from his friend what that is. CW, can you get an explanation from your friend?
*whew* "When does righteous anger become vengeance?"
Dakini, I realize that you are talking about your own ability transform righteous anger into compassion, but I don't think that it works for everyone.
Self righteous people often use anger to persecute rather than empathize.
I guess my concern is sharing our anger with others. You never know how other people will process their anger. You never know how much it will spread and who will get involved. You never know how far people will go.
I'm not sure if you are coming from an activist POV or if it is just from a personal one.
I just don't see anger as necessary. It doesn't mean that others have to agree with me.
One shouldn't make decisions from negative emotions. One waits until one has calmed down before making a decision. Or one transforms the negative emotion into something positive.
Sometimes, people don't have the skills that they need to help them in a negative situation. If they're lucky, they can look back on it as a lesson learned and use it in their development.
Just like vipassana meditation. Just watch. Don't judge. I'm surprised that people have such a hard time understanding me on here. Most of what I say is basic buddhist teachings. Sure, I have my own ideas and ways of expressing them, but not a whole lot of it is new.
Just watch and dun judge is not vipassana. vipassana is the Tathāgata-garbha of nature bright and pure of every being like a gem of great value. Just watch and dun judge is in fact a method to realize Samantha meditation or Tranquility thereafter it simultaneously achieve Insight or Vispassana meditation. Vispassana & Samantha meditation are non dualism :rarr: :bawl: :om:
*whew* "When does righteous anger become vengeance?"
Dakini, I realize that you are talking about your own ability transform righteous anger to compassion, but I don't think that it works for everyone.
Self righteous people often use anger to persecute rather than empathize.
I guess my concern is sharing our anger with others. You never know how other people will process their anger. You never know how much it will spread and who will get involved. You never know how far people will go.
I just don't see anger as necessary. It doesn't mean that others have to agree with me.
I agree with your concerns.
Well the whole idea is to stop the anger before it bubbles over. ....
Oh well. I still think some of us are talking apples and oranges, here.
Do you think some moderate level of anger should ever be deliberately sustained in order to maintain some kind of energy or motivation?
In my experience, many activist groups seem to support this method, which I think is unwholesome.
I think anger, as with all emotions, is worthwhile. To repress anger is to feel suffering. I can tell you honestly that I was brought up to repress anger, that it was always unattractive and violent and unskillful (though not said in that exact way) and this repression has brought me intense suffering as an adult. Much better to feel the anger, acknowledge it, and react in a skillful way if possible (as others have mentioned, perhaps to be used as a catalyst for positive action).
Anger is never good its only function is to harm us and others.
This assumes that someone will act inappropriately on their anger. Violence or harsh words aren't the only option. Moral outrage ("anger") can be the motivation for compassion. Maybe it depends on what kind of anger we're talking about. Maybe each of us has a different type of scenario in mind. The anger of the Civil Rights Movement in the US created a peaceful movement for social change.
It is not just that Anger burns away our positive potential we accumulate in our mind so it is never wise to get angry, a moment of anger can wipe out alot of merit if not properly dedicated. One doesnt need to be anrgy to be motivated to do something.
We can transform the anger at the moment it arises; acknowledge it, then morph it into constructive speech or action, thus avoiding "getting angry" or "becoming angry". I don't know if it's possible to completely eliminate any hint of anger from one's emotional repertoire. Is that a realistic expectation?
I admit I didn't (have time to) read through every response here. However, my two cents related to your last comment compassionate_warrior...
In the Pali Canon it is repeatedly stated that negative emotions do not disappear, but instead no longer have power over you. When anger (or other negative emotions) arise, one should recognize "oh, this is anger", and observe the rising and cessation of these emotions. With practice (and it can be very quick), negative emotions cease to have any power to afflict the mind, they are simply there and then pass like all dependent phenomena.
I myself used to be a pretty angry person, but in the few short months since I've converted and seriously studied Buddhism, I have managed to become much more calm, and this process is ongoing and fruitful on a daily basis. When anger arises in me, I stop and recognize "oh, I am angry", and then the feeling washes away. Sometimes this is easier than others, but it gets easier every day.
I would suggest that only with the final breaking of the higher fetters would negative emotions cease completely, in which case you'd be an arahant or at least a once-returner.
Thanks for the great clarification from the Pali Canon, Whiterabbit! And congrats on the progress in your practice--pretty impressive for just a few months!
In the Pali Canon it is repeatedly stated that negative emotions do not disappear, but instead no longer have power over you. When anger (or other negative emotions) arise, one should recognize "oh, this is anger", and observe the rising and cessation of these emotions. With practice (and it can be very quick), negative emotions cease to have any power to afflict the mind, they are simply there and then pass like all dependent phenomena.
I would suggest that only with the final breaking of the higher fetters would negative emotions cease completely, in which case you'd be an arahant or at least a once-returner.
This is what I've been trying to say, but unskillfully, apparently.
Kayte, I get your point that it's not good to encourage anger, even if ostensibly for a "worthy cause", since most people aren't practicing Buddhists, and aren't able to handle/control anger. We don't need more anger in the world, that's for sure. I'm not familiar with this policy or practice among polit. activists, that encourages or requires anger.
We can transform the anger at the moment it arises; acknowledge it, then morph it into constructive speech or action, thus avoiding "getting angry" or "becoming angry". I don't know if it's possible to completely eliminate any hint of anger from one's emotional repertoire. Is that a realistic expectation?
Of course it is, If it was not the Liberation let alone enlightenment would certainly be Impossible, Just as a great tree provides all supporting branches for its fruits so to does self grasping provide the basis for other delusions such as anger to arise, Once the Trunk of the tree has been fell then there is no way it can produce its fruits again.
Here's this, from wikipedia, offering some food for thought from a Buddhist perspective: "Anger is an emotion related to one's perception (!)of having been offended or wronged, and a tendency to undo that wrongdoing by retaliation. Videbeck describes anger as a normal emotion that involves a strong uncomfortable and emotional response to a perceived provocation. R. Novao recognized three modalities of anger: cognition (appraisals), somatic-affective (tension, agitations) and behavioral (withdrawal and antagonism). [...]Anger becomes the predominant feeling behaviorally, cognitively and physiologically when a person makes the conscious choice (!) to take action to immediately stop the threatening behavior of another outside force. Modern psychologist view anger as a primary, natural and mature emotion, and as something that has functional value for survival. Anger can mobilize psychological resources for corrective action. Uncontrolled anger can negatively affect personal or social well-being. While many [experts] have warned against the spontaneous and uncontrolled fits of anger, there has been disagreement over the intrinsic value of anger."
What would happen if we would not be able to feel anger? Anger often is the fuel to take action. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not very helpful. Sometimes it is just an emotional breakout, to express dissatisfaction and to become calm again. I think anger is natural. Otherwise we would have been born without it. It can be an extreme as everything can become an extreme. One can also be extremely lovingly while cheating oneself. The balance makes it. To suppress anger, because one should not become angry - according to the suttas or whatever, will only help to become more angry. I think it is best, not to take everything so extremely serious and to allow ourselves from time to time not to be too perfect. Why are we always asking other people about right and wrong? Why don't we just take the responsibility for ourselves?
I agree with Mugzy. The goal is not to suppress feelings, this to me is analogous to the misconception that meditation means clearing your mind of thoughts. Instead, the goal is to understand the emotion, perceive its origin and cause, and deconstruct it, and recognize it as a depedent-arising and impermanent.
A technique that has been very useful to me when I get angry is to ask myself "will I be angry about this in 10 minutes? In one hour? In one day?" Almost always the answer to this is a resounding no, and then it is easy (to one degree or another) to let go of.
I think it's also important to deconstruct your anger and ask whether it is helping you (hint: the answer is always no). Anger is not necessary for action or commitment to a cause or to demonstrate your feeling on a subject. For instance... you are driving and you get cut off. Instantly anger flares up like a hot flame, but instead of allowing that anger to affect your mind, instead, ask whether getting cut off actually affected you in any way. I have yet to find an instance where anger arose that was not selfish. Displaying anger towards others also does not help one's cause, it only escalates conflicts.
If you believe that anger is a more powerful motivator than compassion or loving-kindness, then you simply have not yet understood these emotions sufficiently. I'm not making a judgment upon anyone there, simply stating a fact. As others have stated, we're only human, and from birth we fight against the negative emotions, but that doesn't mean we need to be a slave to them. We are indeed not perfect and one should not imagine that one is, but by traveling the Path we can seek to better ourselves a little bit at a time.
I think Dhammapada 5 is the most succinct answer to the meta question "is anger ever healthy"?
DP-5: Hate is not overcome by hate; by Love (Metta) alone is hate appeased. This is an eternal law.
I think anger is natural. Otherwise we would have been born without it.
One rebuttal to this is that we live in a much different environment than that from which we evolved anger in. In a primitive environment (possibly related to pre-human ancestors), anger might have been a matter of life and death. In more civilized society it may be much less useful.
However, I do think that someone born without anger would be at a reproductive disadvantage in early human history, as well as in some cultures or subcultures today.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
people are far more angry these days, because life has become more stressful, hurried, urgent and fast. We are constantly bombarded with negative news reports, loud music, insistent children wanting the latest electronic ghizmos, and a society that is fast losing the ability to communicate effectively, verbally, because a major part of communication involves the written word, (delivered in seconds, electronically) thereby eliminating visual contact, body language, elaboration and thinking time. Business deals are over in minutes, whereas once upon a time, it took days. Our lives are beset with "Must do this, must do that!" and the sense of urgency is drowning us, choking us and leaving us redundant and impotent. Courtesy is a form of polite behaviour, practised by civilised people when they can find the time. And time is a precious commodity we are constantly denying ourselves the luxury of enjoying.
I think it would be beneficial if I expand on what I said earlier. To reiterate, once anger has arisen you should not see it as "bad." You must accept what is, because it already is, it is a fact. Now, let me explain something. Yes, as you progress on the path these emotions will become less and less prevalent. But here's where people go wrong. They think that they can just say "anger is bad, i'm not going to feel it," and then all the sudden, poof, no more anger. It doesn't work like that. You MUST accept anger once it has arisen if you desire it to go away. Why? Because the way we get rid of negative things is by acceptance. A lower level of acceptance is accepting anger when it arises. As you progress, a higher level of acceptance is accepting the moment in its entirety as it is. If you can truly do that, then what is there to be angry about? THIS is how you get rid of anger. Not by intentionally getting rid of anger, but by acceptance.
I'd like to point out that SwissSis is speaking from months of experience living in Tibetan communities, where there's a taboo against anger. So anger is often dealt with unskillfully, by suppressing it, then there can be outbursts, for which those expressing anger don't take responsibility. I think we all agree that this isn't a good thing. And anger does have an adaptive function; it evolved to keep us safe when there is danger present.
An effective practice is about avoiding stress (I've found Buddhist teachings very helpful in that regard), being mindful of anger when it arises, and letting it go, and meditating to develop compassion so that anger doesn't happen in the first place.
I find the Wikipedia bit on anger interesting in that it defines anger as an emotion that arises at the PERCEPTION of being wronged. So in most instances in modern life (such as whiterabbit's example of being cut off in traffic--what is road rage about, anyway?) are the result of erroneous perception; it's all in our mind. "Anger becomes the predominant feeling...when a person makes a CONSCIOUS CHOICE...to take...action". We have the choice of either allowing the anger to take over, or to just let it go. With practice, we can eliminate the perception of being wronged and just take life calmly, changing our perceptions of situations that arise, and seeing them as neutral, or viewing with compassion others that might otherwise provoke us. Note that the Wiki entry says that "anger can mobilize the psychological resources to take corrective action". This is a judgement-free view that illustrates the positive function of anger. It's uncontrolled anger that's the problem, not the initial spark that calls a problem to our attention, IMHO.
@cloud, well last night I was certainly in the wrong as aHN's intentional trolling got to me. I can definitely admit that. I think I need to simply ignore people when they attack me for no good reason. This is just my opinion, but when someone attacks me and I proceed with explaining myself, this is to act like I care what they believe. I don't. The only people I care what they believe is the earnest seekers who try to keep their ego in check for the purpose of learning and growing. Them, I love to help them in their process. Those who think they know it all and don't want to grow, I would prefer to let them think they know it all. It doesn't really matter what you believe anyways. It's their lives.
Excuse me for the late response to this, TheJourney, but I thought you were arguing against dualistic interpretations. Should it not be of a single taste whether someone praises you, condemns you, listens to you or ignores you? Isn't your own aversion to being denigrated at fault? If you have not put to rest praise and blame, how can you say that you have achieved the final result?
"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." “When angry, count to four. When very angry, swear.” Mark Twain
I'm not familiar with him but I assume he's a comedian. That's great--channel anger into humor! Talk about skillful means! But I wonder how much of it is true anger. It might be more along the lines of moral outrage, that was discussed earlier, which many felt was different from anger. At any rate, I'll look Black up. Welcome back, Zayl!
Comments
*whew* "When does righteous anger become vengeance?" Well the whole idea is to stop the anger before it bubbles over. With mindfulness, you notice it arising, and convert it into compassionate action. I get the sense that most people when they hear the word "anger" picture red-faced people screaming and getting out of control. That's an extreme state, and it's not at all what I picture when I think of my own anger or outrage. Oh well. I still think some of us are talking apples and oranges, here. One shouldn't make decisions from negative emotions. One waits until one has calmed down before making a decision. Or one transforms the negative emotion into something positive.
It was Compassionate Warrior who said a dharma friend was a psychologist and spoke of "healthy anger". Maybe we should see if he can find out from his friend what that is. CW, can you get an explanation from your friend?
Self righteous people often use anger to persecute rather than empathize.
I guess my concern is sharing our anger with others. You never know how other people will process their anger. You never know how much it will spread and who will get involved. You never know how far people will go.
I'm not sure if you are coming from an activist POV or if it is just from a personal one.
I just don't see anger as necessary. It doesn't mean that others have to agree with me. Sometimes, people don't have the skills that they need to help them in a negative situation. If they're lucky, they can look back on it as a lesson learned and use it in their development.
first site i found. vipassana means witnessing.
Do you think some moderate level of anger should ever be deliberately sustained in order to maintain some kind of energy or motivation?
In my experience, many activist groups seem to support this method, which I think is unwholesome.
It is not just that Anger burns away our positive potential we accumulate in our mind so it is never wise to get angry, a moment of anger can wipe out alot of merit if not properly dedicated.
One doesnt need to be anrgy to be motivated to do something.
In the Pali Canon it is repeatedly stated that negative emotions do not disappear, but instead no longer have power over you. When anger (or other negative emotions) arise, one should recognize "oh, this is anger", and observe the rising and cessation of these emotions. With practice (and it can be very quick), negative emotions cease to have any power to afflict the mind, they are simply there and then pass like all dependent phenomena.
I myself used to be a pretty angry person, but in the few short months since I've converted and seriously studied Buddhism, I have managed to become much more calm, and this process is ongoing and fruitful on a daily basis. When anger arises in me, I stop and recognize "oh, I am angry", and then the feeling washes away. Sometimes this is easier than others, but it gets easier every day.
I would suggest that only with the final breaking of the higher fetters would negative emotions cease completely, in which case you'd be an arahant or at least a once-returner.
Kayte, I get your point that it's not good to encourage anger, even if ostensibly for a "worthy cause", since most people aren't practicing Buddhists, and aren't able to handle/control anger. We don't need more anger in the world, that's for sure. I'm not familiar with this policy or practice among polit. activists, that encourages or requires anger.
http://www.dhammatalks.org.uk/index.php?id=40&file_id=767
.
"Anger is an emotion related to one's perception (!)of having been offended or wronged, and a tendency to undo that wrongdoing by retaliation. Videbeck describes anger as a normal emotion that involves a strong uncomfortable and emotional response to a perceived provocation. R. Novao recognized three modalities of anger: cognition (appraisals), somatic-affective (tension, agitations) and behavioral (withdrawal and antagonism). [...]Anger becomes the predominant feeling behaviorally, cognitively and physiologically when a person makes the conscious choice (!) to take action to immediately stop the threatening behavior of another outside force. Modern psychologist view anger as a primary, natural and mature emotion, and as something that has functional value for survival. Anger can mobilize psychological resources for corrective action. Uncontrolled anger can negatively affect personal or social well-being. While many [experts] have warned against the spontaneous and uncontrolled fits of anger, there has been disagreement over the intrinsic value of anger."
A technique that has been very useful to me when I get angry is to ask myself "will I be angry about this in 10 minutes? In one hour? In one day?" Almost always the answer to this is a resounding no, and then it is easy (to one degree or another) to let go of.
I think it's also important to deconstruct your anger and ask whether it is helping you (hint: the answer is always no). Anger is not necessary for action or commitment to a cause or to demonstrate your feeling on a subject. For instance... you are driving and you get cut off. Instantly anger flares up like a hot flame, but instead of allowing that anger to affect your mind, instead, ask whether getting cut off actually affected you in any way. I have yet to find an instance where anger arose that was not selfish. Displaying anger towards others also does not help one's cause, it only escalates conflicts.
If you believe that anger is a more powerful motivator than compassion or loving-kindness, then you simply have not yet understood these emotions sufficiently. I'm not making a judgment upon anyone there, simply stating a fact. As others have stated, we're only human, and from birth we fight against the negative emotions, but that doesn't mean we need to be a slave to them. We are indeed not perfect and one should not imagine that one is, but by traveling the Path we can seek to better ourselves a little bit at a time.
I think Dhammapada 5 is the most succinct answer to the meta question "is anger ever healthy"?
DP-5:
Hate is not overcome by hate; by Love (Metta) alone is hate appeased. This is an eternal law.
However, I do think that someone born without anger would be at a reproductive disadvantage in early human history, as well as in some cultures or subcultures today.
Business deals are over in minutes, whereas once upon a time, it took days.
Our lives are beset with "Must do this, must do that!" and the sense of urgency is drowning us, choking us and leaving us redundant and impotent.
Courtesy is a form of polite behaviour, practised by civilised people when they can find the time. And time is a precious commodity we are constantly denying ourselves the luxury of enjoying.
No wonder we're pissed-off....
An effective practice is about avoiding stress (I've found Buddhist teachings very helpful in that regard), being mindful of anger when it arises, and letting it go, and meditating to develop compassion so that anger doesn't happen in the first place.
I find the Wikipedia bit on anger interesting in that it defines anger as an emotion that arises at the PERCEPTION of being wronged. So in most instances in modern life (such as whiterabbit's example of being cut off in traffic--what is road rage about, anyway?) are the result of erroneous perception; it's all in our mind. "Anger becomes the predominant feeling...when a person makes a CONSCIOUS CHOICE...to take...action". We have the choice of either allowing the anger to take over, or to just let it go. With practice, we can eliminate the perception of being wronged and just take life calmly, changing our perceptions of situations that arise, and seeing them as neutral, or viewing with compassion others that might otherwise provoke us. Note that the Wiki entry says that "anger can mobilize the psychological resources to take corrective action". This is a judgement-free view that illustrates the positive function of anger. It's uncontrolled anger that's the problem, not the initial spark that calls a problem to our attention, IMHO.
“When angry, count to four. When very angry, swear.”
Mark Twain
P.S. I'm back baby!
Welcome back, Zayl!