Six steps to anger management
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
If one is aware why the need to have all these precepts - is it not a contradiction? Awareness is indifference to the mind's .... Precepts are conditional, imposed and anything existential is beginningless and endless. The past and the future comes in the moment precepts come in. So how can awareness cultivate ...?
Grace, kindness are a by-product of being aware, one's meditative state of being .... one's being choicelessly aware of what is, not a result.
I wrote this months ago in my blog:
...Hi,
The rules first, since it is an easy one.
The rules are not fixed - Buddha did not set rules in the beginning, but as time goes by, his community/sangha did foolish things, so the Buddha had no choice but to set some rules to prevent folly from being repeated. Buddha's rules were 'subject to revision'.
Now.. I understand that AF does not have precepts and rules and prefer people to exercise their common sense. This is also the case in certain schools of Buddhism - Dzogchen, for example, teaches not blind adherence to rules but to exercise our awareness.
Even non-buddhist teachings like Eckhart Tolle also claim that rules are not necessary if one acts with awareness and wisdom. (not suggesting that Eckhart Tolle is teaching the same things as AF, just pointing out that the 'no rules' thing is not perculiar to AF at all)
Of course... that is IF that person has 'awareness' and 'wisdom' to begin with.
Some people just don't! So how do you, for practical purposes, prevent criminals from killing, from stealing things?
You set up laws. Well, yes, understandably as AF so clearly said, the rules and laws have not solved the problems of humanity from its roots - the attachment to the self/Self that leads to the affective system of craving, anger, harmfulness, etc, the source of all the sufferings of the world. This is in line with Buddhist understanding.
Yet, having laws are still necessary because at least it helps maintain some level of orderliness in society (even though not to the level of perfection). You can't deny that the vast majority of society are still un-free, and therefore, quite capable of being harmful.
You can't expect everyone to attain Actual Freedom immediately - I do not believe it can be achieved even in ten thousand years time. Certainly not in our lifetime, I can assure you. So in the meanwhile, while we wait for a utopian society (in an unreachable future) where everyone becomes actually free, do we just let society run lawless and let the murders and rapes go uncontrolled? Do you see my point?
So why do away with laws and rules? It is necessary, for the time being. It is not the ultimate solution, I agree, but a practical interim (and imperfect) solution to some of society's problems. After all who would want to live in a lawless land? Everyone prefers to live in a lawful, safe, low-crime society. Tell me honestly: would you even dare let alone want to live in a lawless society where murders, rape, robbery go unchecked?
Similar for Buddha - his Arhants were no longer capable of transgressing the rules (like killing, stealing, etc) even if the rules were non-existent. Why? They have removed the delusion of a self/Self and the affective system of craving, anger, harmfulness, fear, etc etc. They can no longer do harm to themselves and others.
But the rules are necessary for beginners/non-Arhants.
It is for practical, pragmatic purposes. To safeguard the happiness of mankind and prevent the world from becoming a living hell, precepts and rules are still a 'transitory necessity'.
Buddhism has a higher goal - freedom from all sufferings. Precepts and rules are not going to achieve that, it only ensures that you do not make your deluded life even worse - but it does not remove your delusions (of being a self/Self). Nevertheless, precepts are still helpful for practical purposes.
Also, precepts help ensure that if we do not become an Arhant/liberated yet, at least we do not make so much bad karma for ourselves.... (excerpt cut) -
What I wrote is not factual. So, I assume it no longer holds true! It is dead! I say that cos truth cannot be caged as it an existential experience of herenow and transcends definitions.Having said that,I cannot say that you are ''wrong'' or ''right'' - it is simply that two persons are partaking of what appears here differently, two planes of perception n differing psychological make-ups - it is subjective experience.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I wrote this months ago in my blog:
...Hi,
The rules first, since it is an easy one.
The rules are not fixed - Buddha did not set rules in the beginning, but as time goes by, his community/sangha did foolish things, so the Buddha had no choice but to set some rules to prevent folly from being repeated. Buddha's rules were 'subject to revision'.
Now.. I understand that AF does not have precepts and rules and prefer people to exercise their common sense. This is also the case in certain schools of Buddhism - Dzogchen, for example, teaches not blind adherence to rules but to exercise our awareness.
Even non-buddhist teachings like Eckhart Tolle also claim that rules are not necessary if one acts with awareness and wisdom. (not suggesting that Eckhart Tolle is teaching the same things as AF, just pointing out that the 'no rules' thing is not perculiar to AF at all)
Of course... that is IF that person has 'awareness' and 'wisdom' to begin with.
Some people just don't! So how do you, for practical purposes, prevent criminals from killing, from stealing things?
You set up laws. Well, yes, understandably as AF so clearly said, the rules and laws have not solved the problems of humanity from its roots - the attachment to the self/Self that leads to the affective system of craving, anger, harmfulness, etc, the source of all the sufferings of the world. This is in line with Buddhist understanding.
Yet, having laws are still necessary because at least it helps maintain some level of orderliness in society (even though not to the level of perfection). You can't deny that the vast majority of society are still un-free, and therefore, quite capable of being harmful.
You can't expect everyone to attain Actual Freedom immediately - I do not believe it can be achieved even in ten thousand years time. Certainly not in our lifetime, I can assure you. So in the meanwhile, while we wait for a utopian society (in an unreachable future) where everyone becomes actually free, do we just let society run lawless and let the murders and rapes go uncontrolled? Do you see my point?
So why do away with laws and rules? It is necessary, for the time being. It is not the ultimate solution, I agree, but a practical interim (and imperfect) solution to some of society's problems. After all who would want to live in a lawless land? Everyone prefers to live in a lawful, safe, low-crime society. Tell me honestly: would you even dare let alone want to live in a lawless society where murders, rape, robbery go unchecked?
Similar for Buddha - his Arhants were no longer capable of transgressing the rules (like killing, stealing, etc) even if the rules were non-existent. Why? They have removed the delusion of a self/Self and the affective system of craving, anger, harmfulness, fear, etc etc. They can no longer do harm to themselves and others.
But the rules are necessary for beginners/non-Arhants.
It is for practical, pragmatic purposes. To safeguard the happiness of mankind and prevent the world from becoming a living hell, precepts and rules are still a 'transitory necessity'.
Buddhism has a higher goal - freedom from all sufferings. Precepts and rules are not going to achieve that, it only ensures that you do not make your deluded life even worse - but it does not remove your delusions (of being a self/Self). Nevertheless, precepts are still helpful for practical purposes.
Also, precepts help ensure that if we do not become an Arhant/liberated yet, at least we do not make so much bad karma for ourselves.... (excerpt cut)Hi AEN,
Well said. Thanks.
Hi Fugazzi,
I wish a path can be as simple as having no-rules and no precepts. However, reality is more complex than that.
IMO, much to the misconception about it, Enlightenment will not take away any sensation, even that of pain. The only thing that it took away is the aversion and suffering caused by not facing the sensation/situation directly/squarely as it IS. If you do not believe me, you can pinch yourself hard now and see if you can have yourself not feel the sensation :)
Precepts works at the level of sensation, eventually. It minimise the occurences of painful sensation, to oneself and to others. The sensation of being cut is painful whether one is enlightened or not. All harm are painful at the level of sensation. It is this, that precepts can minimise.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:What I wrote is not factual. So, I assume it no longer holds true! It is dead! I say that cos truth cannot be caged as it an existential experience of herenow and transcends definitions.Having said that,I cannot say that you are ''wrong'' or ''right'' - it is simply that two persons are partaking of what appears here differently, two planes of perception n differing psychological make-ups - it is subjective experience.
Abdication of accountability of coherence for mutual literal correspondence,
Forward projection of aerial particulates.
-
probably not very relevant to the main discussion here, but here's my favourite quote.
"IT’S POSSIBLE TO DO GOOD and equally possible to do harm, and so we’re stuck with the necessity of choice and consequence. And no choice can ever be encompassing and conclusive because the moment is a movement and requires continual adaptation and adjustment. We can faithfully adhere to a precept, and yet end up doing irreparable harm. We can never trace the ultimate consequence of our choices, but it’s safe to conclude that whatever we decide to do will be fraught with certain error and fall short of the best intent." --Lin Jensen
-
Wei Ching,
The instant I decide what should be the end, I am reduced to a vested interest. Seeker I am no more or the seeking is all in vain.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Wei Ching,
The instant I decide what should be the end, I am reduced to a vested interest. Seeker I am no more or the seeking is all in vain.
No beginning, no end, just a journey. I see a movie, I laugh and I cry, or I bang my chest or I don't laugh and cry' or even bang my chest , still is watching, for I am still watching. As long as I am watching, I am . The journey has not ended.
-
Watching and allowing it to be without labelling, without judgement without wanting without wishing, most of all not getting attached or identifying with .....Eg,. Intellect is very healthy when it is used, the moment one gets identified with it it is intellectuality. The latter is a barrier, a pond! Intelligence responds to what shows up as ti is in the moment, the capacity to handle that which is. Intelligence is a welling of one's being ... it cannot be acquired. Intellect is acquired from books, teachers, etc ...) and at the most one is going to react. Re-act from the past. Rejecting none one would expereince the balance without trying to balance.
One has to scale the mountain to see the view. The inward journey may reduce one to a nothingness or one may simply ''disappear'' - the fear or that is what seems to belie the resistance to that journey. Dropping ''the self'' is anathema and it least that seems to be the predicament'.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Watching and allowing it to be without labelling, without judgement without wanting without wishing, most of all not getting attached or identifying with .....Eg,. Intellect is very healthy when it is used, the moment one gets identified with it it is intellectuality. The latter is a barrier, a pond! Intelligence responds to what shows up as ti is in the moment, the capacity to handle that which is. Intelligence is a welling of one's being ... it cannot be acquired. Intellect is acquired from books, teachers, etc ...) and at the most one is going to react. Re-act from the past. Rejecting none one would expereince the balance without trying to balance.
One has to scale the mountain to see the view. The inward journey may reduce one to a nothingness or one may simply ''disappear'' - the fear or that is what seems to belie the resistance to that journey. Dropping ''the self'' is anathema and it least that seems to be the predicament'.
One measure of intelligence is the ability to see things in context and relate. The ability to see smoke as it is, and the fundamental response of "I" to "Others". What does "no self" means to me? The stillness of mind, acknowledging the phenomenon without reifying.
It being what it is, "me" reticent, "me" talking, reacting, and occasionally no "me".
-
Mind can be likened to a photocopier (it thinks in terms of images, esp of the past and tries to repeat or futurize it and re-label or re-experience it in a different form). Can one visualize something uncertain?
The mirror simply reflects - it does not know I or me or .... The I or me or comes in the very moment evaluation, labelling or when one starts thinking that something is being watched! The moment the evalution or the judging enters the mirror is already distorted by the mind's imposing its meaning or ... Hence, watching is herenow, existential or simply it is not.
Intelligence belongs to the mirroring consciousness; memory to that of the the mind. Memory is one thing. it is not intelligence. The predicament of humanity is that it is equated as intelligence.
I me .. exists cos of one's mind ( sense of self defined).
Of course, the wise one would still for eg use the mind to do or be or partake of an expereince and die to that role or experience. One does not accumulate, one's mirror is dusted off the moment one lets go after that doing or experience.
In other words one partakes of the world (in all its forms and what have you) and yet returns to one's being ''free'' of the world.
When the self is absent one gets to partake of ... in its totality. When the self is absent one is present to the presence of ....
It is the uncertainty of what IS that is the barrier cos the mind cannot reconcile to uncertainty!
Totality is the foundation of being free. It is cos the ''incompleteness'' of that expereince that mind accumulates whatever one sets out to be or do ..... hence the dust gathers on one's being, one's mirroring is distorted.
Ps - mind is a utility use it, but not be used by it. It presupposes one is alert and conscious to that aspect the limitations of the mind esp that of the duality and the ''psychological'' time.
I share opinions views and whether one agrees or not it does not matter. What is true cannot be explained or espoused. Can what is existentially true be defined? When it is - it is simply dead, the past! The wick and the candle is not life - the intensity of its burning is all the difference bet life and living.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Mind can be likened to a photocopier (it thinks in terms of images, esp of the past and tries to repeat or futurize it and re-label or re-experience it in a different form). Can one visualize something uncertain?
The mirror simply reflects - it does not know I or me or .... The I or me or comes in the very moment evaluation, labelling or when one starts thinking that something is being watched! The moment the evalution or the judging enters the mirror is already distorted by the mind's imposing its meaning or ... Hence, watching is herenow, existential or simply it is not.
Intelligence belongs to the mirroring consciousness; memory to that of the the mind. Memory is one thing. it is not intelligence. The predicament of humanity is that it is equated as intelligence.
I me .. exists cos of one's mind ( sense of self defined).
Of course, the wise one would still for eg use the mind to do or be or partake of an expereince and die to that role or experience. One does not accumulate, one's mirror is dusted off the moment one lets go after that doing or experience.
In other words one partakes of the world (in all its forms and what have you) and yet returns to one's being ''free'' of the world.
When the self is absent one gets to partake of ... in its totality. When the self is absent one is present to the presence of ....
It is the uncertainty of what IS that is the barrier cos the mind cannot reconcile to uncertainty!
Totality is the foundation of being free. It is cos the ''incompleteness'' of that expereince that mind accumulates whatever one sets out to be or do ..... hence the dust gathers on one's being, one's mirroring is distorted.
Ps - mind is a utility use it, but not be used by it. It presupposes one is alert and conscious to that aspect the limitations of the mind esp that of the duality and the ''psychological'' time.
I share opinions views and whether one agrees or not it does not matter. What is true cannot be explained or espoused. Can what is existentially true be defined? When it is - it is simply dead, the past! The wick and the candle is not life - the intensity of its burning is all the difference bet life and living.
We are way off topic!!!
1)Waking state thoughts are sound-like, only conceptual. Sleeping thoughts or dreamstates are visual like, also conceptual in content, for example,you will not see colour if colours are not relevant.
The mind mainly process the known and predict the uncertain.2)The registering of phenomena is primary property of mind, as a functioning aspect of being human, mind always operates with me or self in perspective, meaning self interest is always primary objective of the mind. Everything is between "I" and phenomena with mind as conduit.3)Intelligence is the processing of information registered and stored within one's memory. Intelligence is a measure of adaptability and is a valued asset .4) I , Me is an aggregate or the skandas, it does not exist independently.5) The wise or otherwise both alike experiences being, the difference being the wise ,experiences the present without undue projection of the past and the future.6) One is not free or independent of the world, unless there duality, one separate one and the "rest".7)The experience of "No self" leaves just the experience of itself, of being relieved of tenuous grip of being.8)Uncertainty is the unease of the unknown, lack of predictability. Reconciliation comes with letting go of known dogmas, and ability to relate to the experience.9)Totality of experience is the total sum of present experience here and now, the past culminating to the present. Totality of future experience, the culmination past up the point of the future"present".10)Mind in service of "I', utilise concepts of duality, to cling to existence. If measure to one's mind, one would measure rate of consciousness or resolving power against chronological time. To brand a person slow is actually to subconsciously rate the person's of consciousness, the ability to process information.11)All would be well if the main intention is to share, alas, but no, I see it as more of proclamation, out of context and out of topic. There avenues to proclaim aplenty, self domain, or personal topic; locked, when comments are not invited. Seems you are an adept at doing lateral sidestepping! It seems that you do not know how to "share' ! -
You have explained ... and true or not true, right or wrong - it is your expereince. It is your perception and your projection of what is within you. Can I assume that you are ...? Similarly, my views and ... are mine and whether it is rite or wrong or .... is my perception and projection of what is within me
You are an excuse, anyone is an excuse cos circumstances dont make a person - it reveals one, it reveals what I am all about in my postings here and elsewhere. One is free to accept, reject or ignore!
-
A Buddhist Technique for Dealing with Anger
Thich Nhat Hanh’s steps of mindfulness
Step 1: Mindfulness of the Emotion
"We can say to ourselves,
- "Breathing in, I know that anger is in me. Breathing out I know that I am my anger."
- Or "Breathing in, I know that anger is in me. Breathing out I know that I must put all my energy into caring for my anger."
When we are angry . . .
- We are the anger
- Do not judge or repress the anger
- Focus on the self, not on the other
- as an older sister cares for a younger sister,
- as a gardener sees with insight and non-dual vision the potential beauty of compost,
- Gradually we can transform the anger completely into peace, love, and understanding
To cool down:
Take a walk outside, meditating:
- Breathing in, I know that anger is here.
- Breathing out, I know that the anger is me.
- Breathing in, I know that anger is unpleasant
- Breathing out, I know this feeling will pass.
- Breathing in, I am calm.
- Breathing out, I am strong enough to take care of this anger.
From understanding to compassion
- When we are calm enough to look directly at the anger, we can begin to see its root causes: misunderstanding, clumsiness, injustice, resentment, or conditioning.
- Taking time, perhaps half an hour, to be mindful of the anger, transforms it.
- "Seeing and understanding are the elements of liberation that bring about love and compassion."
The roots of anger
The primary roots are in ourselves:
- our lack of understanding of these causes of anger
- our desire, pride, agitation, and suspicion
The secondary roots are in the other. When we understand the factors that led to the other’s behavior, we can respond with help or discipline from a place of compassion.
Becoming free of knots (internal formations)
- We learn to become aware of problematic reactions, handling them promptly and easily in the present.
- We learn to let past problematic experiences come to mindfulness .
- Practicing of breathing and smiling, we learn to look at our difficult emotions without having to turn away from them, seeing the associations based on past experience.
Copyright 2002 - Kent State University - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Problems? Questions? Need help? Contact [email protected]
Course built and delivered by Kent State University Distributed Learning.