--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > In this world > > Hate never yet dispelled hate. > > Only love dispels hate. > > This is the law, > > Ancient and inexhaustible. > > > > ***************************************** > > > > Anger is like a chariot careening wildly. > > He who curbs his anger is the true charioteer. > > Others merely hold the reins. > > > > ***************************************** > > > > Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal > > with the intent of throwing it at someone else; > > you are the one who gets burned. > > > > ***************************************** > > > > You will not be punished for your anger, > > you will be punished by your anger. > > Having seen, and had to interact with those that are angry, > including myself, an aspect of it, i think is a type of > craziness, in the sense of insanity. Or at least dangerously, > unpredictably irrational.
In Buddhist terms, it is a state of attention, brought about by indulging in a "toxic emotion." If you don't know that you are not a slave to the state of attention, and can change it at any moment (*just* as easily as you shift from being lost in thoughts in TM to "coming back to the mantra"), then yes, they can come to believe that they *are* slaves to the emotional state. But they aren't. They are merely slaves to believing that they are slaves to the emotional state and its corresponding low state of attention. > Dealing with someone who is angry and has some influence on > your life -- spouse, parent, boss, etc., ups the stakes. > The uncertainty of how far they are going to cross the line > of rationality and "appropriate" response is great. It can > be dicey. But not necessarily overwhelming, if one is cen- tered within ones Self. > Per ToK (theory of Karma) -- if someone in power over you > gets irrationally angry at you -- you must have done the > same to someone in the past. No, that's how it is according to *one* ToK, the IMO degraded view of karma you hear a lot from Hindu sources. They are the same sources who would have you believe that the victims of the last big hurricane "deserved it." Buddhist karma includes dependent origination (or independent origination, which I prefer), which says that sometimes the outside world just does shit, and you happen to be in the way. The shit *did* happen, and you *did* happen to be in the way, and yes you have to *deal* with the shit, but you didn't necessarily do the *same* shit to someone else. That's a silly over- simplification of a complex subject. If you step off the curb and see a bus bearing down on you, does that "mean" that in a former life you ran someone down with a bus? Of course not. It just means that you weren't paying enough attention to here and now, and were careless. The important thing is that if you *become* aware quickly enough, you can jump out of the way. You don't *have* to be run down by the bus. Same with toxic states of attention brought on by indulging in toxic emotions. You don't have to stay there in the state of attention of anger; you can step out of the way. Same with dealing with someone else's toxic anger; you don't have to let it ruin your day. You can shrug it off or laugh at them, and bring *your* state of attention to a nicer place. If they can't, well, that's just them being punished by their own anger. > Wear that persons shoes for a few miles. "Ouch. Not > going to dothat again." That's one simplistic way of looking at karma. I don't necessarily agree with it. Remember the story of the dog in the Champs de Mars taking one look at my dog from fifty meters away and attacking him? My dog didn't do anything other than smell funny to the other dog. There is nothing for him to "learn" from the incident other than to be wary of big, angry dogs with stupid owners. :-) > And thus we learn. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast. Its a > self-correcting, self-regulating, educational mechanism > -- not dependent on any code of morality, judges of > morals and sins, final judgement, fear, guilt or shame. > > As is a Spanish proverb (help me out here Turq -- including > if I have been mislead), PP (paraphrasing), "God, the > infinite storekeeper, said 'take what you want, but pay > the price'". Don't know the proverb, but a hooker at one of the Sitges tourist hotels said that to me the other day when she noticed I was checkin' her out. I decided it wasn't worth the price, wished her good luck, and went on my way. :-) The problem with anger and the other toxic emotions are that they are a *rush*. Your adrenaline starts pumping, your heart races, and you feel *good*, in a bad sorta way. And if your life is so empty that you perceive this minor, low-vibe rush as *better than* your normal, boring life, well, you can easily get addicted to being angry, and the low-vibe rush of the anger state of attention. That's what I think we see in the "chronically angry." If you encounter someone like that, and try your best to remind them that there are *other* kinds of rushes, *other* ways to feel something other than boredom and frustration, they often...uh...don't appreciate the favor. In fact, they become even *more* angry. They treat the person who is trying to remind them that they don't have to *stay* angry, and that they can change their state of attention to a happier one at any moment, as if he or she is *attacking* them. And so they *redouble* their anger, and their angry actions. And so it goes, on and on and on. And from the point of view of almost anyone watching with a dispassionate or compassionate eye, Buddha's words couldn't possibly be more true: You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. The saddest part of dealing with the chronically angry is watching them deteriorate further and further into the low mindstates that correspond with the toxic emotion of anger.
