anger

[Refugee]

In Buddhist teachings anger is a non virtue, erases merit, results in
suffering, and not much good is said about it. Also in Buddhist
teachings, the function of feelings is to enable us to experience our
karma.
When anger arises, is it nescasarily non virtue, if it is not
perpetuated with negative thoughts, but rather observed and allowed to
pass?

[Katie Gustafson]

I'm very interested to know about how 'the function of feelings is to enable us to experience our karma.' Does that mean that having feelings that are painful are a way to 'purify' our negative karma (not sure that's the right word - like, exhausting some bad karma we've accumulated, is what I mean)? This is a new idea to me, thank you for sending it out.
 
I've read that feelings like anger can be thought of as 'spontaneous arisings of mind', or 'ineffable energy'. Which would mean that in isolation they're not non-virtuous, perhaps? Pema Chodron and Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche have talked about 'shenpa' (Tibetan word; I'd like to hear how Rinpoche translates it (also 'zhen-pa'?)), which I believe describes that process of getting 'hooked' by a feeling you have. It's that tension, or that catch you feel right after you realize you're feeling something (I think...). In the process of getting 'hooked', that perception of that feeling energy gets turned into a dualistic 'me vs. other' storyline.
 
So maybe, after you have some sort of perception of some situation or other, there's the getting-hooked process, which would be, you perceive the feeling you're having, you create a story about it that involves a 'me vs something else' component, then you buy into the story, and run with it, and then you're really mad or sad, etc. That initial energy you had gets transformed into something narrow and confining. 
 
Maybe this tendency to get hooked is an old habit of over-interpreting our feelings. It may be slightly terrifying to our egos to have a feeling but not have a storyline to go with it. If there's a feeling without ego 'owning' or seeming to give rise to that feeling, then who's really in control? Apparently ego isn't, if it didn't create that feeling. So, the getting hooked process may be ego's way of taking back control when deeper levels of mind pop out.
 
What I've experienced sometimes is that that anger energy can very easily turn to sadness, which turns into a sort of mirth. When I see myself get wrapped so tight inside a feeling, like a deli sandwich in butcher paper, I sometimes all the sudden forget what the storyline was, and I still have this energy that was directed to anger or sadness, but now it tickles me and makes me laugh. It's a bizarre experience, and I think it's called 'emotional lability' - diagnosable by a physician, but not a problem in Buddhism?
 
Best,
Katie 

[Ron Roberts]

In Yeshe Gyeltsens "A Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness" feeling is classified as one of the 5 omnipresent mental factors. To quote the text further, but not word for word for this snail typist, Feeling has the characteristic of experience; through the entity of experience, it experiences individually the fruitional results of virtuous and non-virtuous actions. Here, that which is experienced by feeling is taught to be a fruition. As a fruition, it seems like feelings would have the effect of purifying negative karma.

 

I am not sure if anger in the context of this system of explaining "Minds and Mental Factors" is considered a "feeling". The text defines anger by referring to the "Compendium of Knowledge" as "a malice towards sentient beings, suffering, and phenomena that re sources of suffering. It has the function of acting as a support for not abiding in contact and for misconduct." I am not sure what is meant by contact in this use. By this definition, It seems anger must create future suffering as implied by malice. This however depends I would think on feeding it with thoughts, and getting "hooked" as you referred. Not experiencing at least somewhat dualistically is not likely for someone like me, but it isn't too hard to refrain from malicious thoughts, or at least not run away with them. I believe the cause of anger is rooted in dualistic perception.

 

The emotional lability is interesting. I never heard of that one before.

 

ron

[Masae Kawamura]

Hey Y'all,

Great discussion.  I do think that the emotion anger is a biological phenomena that can actually be useful for survival to single pointedly confront or notify the perceiver of impending danger.  However, our minds takes it to a new level. As Katie put it so well, gets hooked.  Its the conceptual elaborations of unenlightened beings that create the duality, the hatred and suffering caused by anger.  Once we are hooked, our hearts close and Bodhicitta implodes.  So how should a Buddhist approach these emotions.... like an enemy or friend? Per Kagyu/Nyingma master Ponlop Rimpoche, the Hinayana path would make us shun anger to create a safe barrier and gap, the Mahayana path would turn it into manure for practice and the Vajrayanans would find self liberation in these emotions  by seeing its nature as wisdom (empty) as it arises.  All of these approaches require the awareness and mindfulness of a trained mind (meditation).  We otherwise are immediately and mindlessly engulfed by anger like a big tsunami wave.  No chance to run away, no chance to be inspired by its raw power and certainly way too late to catch the ride of your life with a surfboard.

 

Definitely needing to meditate more and constantly,

Masae

 

-----Dharma...@googlegroups.com wrote: -----

To: Dharma...@googlegroups.com
From: "Ron Roberts" <ronisem...@gmail.com>
Sent by: Dharma...@googlegroups.com
Date: 11/08/2007 08:01PM
Subject: Re: anger