Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.

There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.

Then there is the Unnabha paradox.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.

There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.

Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

Or to put it in another way: -5 + 5 = 0

lojong1 wrote:Then there is the Unnabha paradox.

If you're referring to SN 51.15, it's hardly a paradox. Rather, it's a matter of differentiating between what is skillful and what is unskillful. Chanda (desire) in the context of developing the noble path is skillful.

Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas. Anger is regarded as unskillful, and unskillful mental qualities don't lead to liberation. For example, the well known verse from Dhammapada 1.5:

• Hatred never ends through hatred.
  By non-hate alone does it end.
  This is an ancient truth.

Alex123 wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:

Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.

There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.

Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

Or to put it in another way: -5 + 5 = 0

Hi Alex,

I think it is important to distinguish between 1. a mind overcome by aversion, which is clearly unskilful, and 2. intentionally bringing forth a fabrication - the perception of foulness - with the wholesome underlying intention of abandoning sensual desire. Both the state of mind, and the motivation are different here, aren't they?

So it's not through aversion that we counter greed, it's through seeing the object of our greed in a different way.


(The above was according to my current understanding; someone kindly correct it if there is any inaccuracy.)

KInd regards

Ñāṇa wrote:

Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas. Anger is regarded as unskillful, and unskillful mental qualities don't lead to liberation. For example, the well known verse from Dhammapada 1.5:

• Hatred never ends through hatred.
  By non-hate alone does it end.
  This is an ancient truth.

Stop and listen to Ñāṇa, and contemplate what he is saying here.

Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else. Yes? An act of the ego. Yes?

Better to replace the anger in your equation with dispassion (for example, non-hate) through insight into "things as they are."

Dispassion implies allowing things to be and not minding that they are (that they exists).

daverupa wrote:

porpoise wrote:I'm still not clear about whether the 1st arrow ( physical pain ) is dukkha for a Buddha.

SN 1.38 & SN 4.13 discuss this.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed.

"Unperturbed" seems to be the key term here.

Thanks Dave, useful references. "Unperturbed" does seem to be significant.

Ñāṇa wrote:I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas.

I think that while anger and dislike are similar in some degree (both push away or reject something), dislike is less harmful than anger. So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?

IanAnd wrote:Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else.

What about disliking? What about choosing? Doesn't it presupposes someone to "dislike" at some thing or someone else.

Alex123 wrote:Doesn't it presuppose

It doesn't seem to, no.

Alex123 wrote: I think that while anger and dislike are similar in some degree (both push away or reject something), dislike is less harmful than anger. So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?

Hi Alex,

It is possible that using the word "dislike" is meant to convey some degree of affective "rejection" or "pushing away" but this is not necessarily so. The words we use are created within the context of an unenlightened mind so that "dislike" is necessarily associated with some degree of aversion. We can imagine that the Buddha has preference without aversion attraction or apathy. I think we can say that it is a new category which unenlightened humanity has not had the opportunity to name except with the term Nibbana. For us painful pleasant and neutral experience is almost always conjoined with some degree of aversion, attraction, or apathy.


Take Care

Prasadachitta

This is a very interesting discussion.

If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.

One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.

I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?

PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.

Alex123 wrote:

IanAnd wrote:Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else.

What about disliking? What about choosing? Doesn't it presupposes someone to "dislike" at some thing or someone else.

With apologies to the OP of this thread (which has been temporarily hijacked). Hopefully to get back on track soon.

Alex, please pause long enough to put two and two together (for your own benefit, if for no one else). The following seems to have gone over your head: "Dispassion implies allowing things to be and not minding that they are (that they exists)." And daverupa's contribution, in reference to the Buddha and how he responded to physical pain (something that we all have an aversion toward): ". . . but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed."

It is not so much that the arising of disliking or aversion can take place (as it most assuredly can, even in an arahant, who is confronted by a conventional situation which may seem to be unjustified, in the mind). It is about not taking it personally (i.e. remaining unperturbed that it has arisen; in other words, not minding that it has arisen, thus not causing one dukkha!). Through insight into "things as they are" one simply observes the arising of conventional reactions (mental processes) without becoming part of the reactions. In other words, one observes: "Oh, look! A reaction has arisen! How quaint. In the meantime, I remain unperturbed [by its arising]!" See?

Modus.Ponens wrote:This is a very interesting discussion.

If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.

One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.

I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?

PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.

I really do not know what you are saying here about me, nor do I know iirc and idk mean. If this is text msg speak, it should be banned outright.