Getting mad fits sometimes

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Getting mad fits sometimes

I have to lend my voice to Taigu and Steph. You cannot be devoid of anger and you should not try to deny a piece of the human condition simply because it is less than beneficial. Neither, however, should you roll around in it and swim in the emotion until your fingers get all pruny. Recognize it, but one should not allow it to dictate how one will act. If you act from a place of clarity, your actions are wholly your own; if you act from a place of anger, then your actions are really Anger's actions. Anger's actions make Anger's karma, and worse still it is now Anger's actions that other people are comming in contact with - coloring their actions and thoughts, breeding more anger, causing resentment.

[AlanLa]

Re: Getting mad fits sometimes

I am very grateful for Karl writing what is below, and it bugs me to the point of posting again on this thread.

What IS definitely wrong is to allow anger to become our identity. In the west, we don't (usually) say, "I feel angry." (Or, I feel happy, or I feel sad, etc...) No no... we say, "I AM angry." It's really not how American English works, is it? Think about it. Mom scolds her boy saying, "I am very angry at you right now!" Or we say, "I am totally pissed off!" or, "I'm just so mad!" (Mad? Interesting.) Powerful word, that little, "AM." Other languages don't really put the identifier there. Linguistically, it's pretty weird. I wouldn't say, "I feel Karl." (under normal circumstances.) I'd say, "I am Karl," or maybe, "My name's Karl." But when talking about emotions, especially powerful ones like this, I'll always say, "I am very angry!" (and say other colorful things.)
Why the "am?" Why do we in the West SO hugely identify with our feelings? And in the long run, isn't that part of the overall difficulty in presenting the Dharma here? We ALL feel things. So why must I make this anger "mine?" Why must I BECOME it to express it? Why the "am?" Something maybe we need to overcome in our collective mindset. Or just part of who and what we are. I don't know.

As Zen Buddhists we say "I am also a buddha."
But we (as regular folk that happen to also be a buddha) also say, "I am angry."
As Zen Buddhists such contradictions are acceptable, and yet... that particular contradiction bugs me. That "I am also a buddha" seems fine, but the other one seems more accurate as the following: "I have anger in me."
Language is important and its effects are subtle. Sure, this is a nuance that only we might bother with, but that's fine by me because it reflects me upon me. Anything I can do, and this case that means linguistically, that can help me separate from self-identification is fine by "me."

[Ankai]

Re: Getting mad fits sometimes

Well, to me, it's more than a linguistic distinction... it illustrates how the way we speak influences who we are. What I mean is, "BUDDHA" is a name, a title, an actual identity. "Angry," on the other hand, is descriptive of nothing more than an emotion. One would never say, "You know, I feel pretty Buddha right now;" it wouldn't make sense. You could, however say, "I feel angry." But instead we say, "I AM angry."
I think it's really interesting... we will make the actual name- the identity- the "other," and something as transient as an emotion becomes an identity.

[AlanLa]

Re: Getting mad fits sometimes

Haha, semantics call on you this time :P But, yeah we agree. You say it better than I can, however, and I just think it's an important point that keeps driving home to me.