RE: WRATH - Beyond the eye-for-an-eye principle
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I really enjoyed the illustration of your ideas. This subject can be difficult to wrap your head around, but I think that you support your arguments well with the diagram. When it comes to the concept of wrath, I am more familiar and in tune with the concept of wrath as conceptualized by eastern thought. In the Tibetan Book of the Dying, for example, there is a section on the Wrathful Deities. At the moment death, the dying person goes through several stages called Bardos. The person has visions of paradise and visions of hell. One of those hellish visions is the wrathful deities, which are shown as demons and monsters. A naive person may find these visions fearsome and scary. The dying person is advised not to be fearful or attracted to these visions, but instead see them for what they are: the restless active essence of pure consciousness. Indeed, their wrath removes the obstacles of ignorance and help one achieve self awareness and enlightenment. Unfortunately, no one has attempted to describe these conceptions of wrath in the more precise and scientific language of the west, though they appear in the iconography and thought of eastern religion.
Your approach on the subject is more in tune with the systematic and down-to-earth process that we take in the west. It's designed to improve one's mental functioning in the here and now. I don't have much to add, except that the concept should also be seen in the context of the differences that exists between us humans. For example, men and women are prone to wrath in different ways. There are certain things that could incite wrath in you as a woman, while those things may not bother me at all as a man, and vice versa. There may also be cultural differences. Broadly speaking, people of northern European descent have a repution for being less excitable than their southern European counterparts. They express wrath in different ways. Do you think that those group differences, like gender and culture, come into play in your conceptualization of wrath?
Hey @litguru,
thank you for the additions, I welcome them! It's the beauty of the comment section that a given topic can be enriched by what the readers have further to say. I will have a look into the given link.
I wonder, If I will be able doing that, once my last hour has come. Now I am warned :)
Yes, I agree about the systematic approach, it's very much designed for us westerners.
I see my piece as part of a bigger picture within the different approaches of what interests me and what stylistic means I choose. I enjoy switching between literature, art, science, philosophy, life stories and doing different things in form and expression.
You are right, the dimension in this text alone seems rather shallow, I have thought about making additions myself. I decided against it because I wanted to be as brief as possible. You know I have certain difficulties with that - LOL - the work begins where the above exercise ends.
It has the broader aim of dealing with one's maturation. For this, it requires problem naming. You and I have already established that different ways lead to identifying what someone might have a problem with in the first place. Whereas, of course, the scholarly Christians and Buddhists and all religions have long known what the human weaknesses are.
Here it was a matter of finding the stairs in one's intimate sphere for oneself using the example of rage - "fortunately" we have seven sins in total and their sub-categories :-D - that lead to where one would like to develop. If wrath is not necessarily a tormenting side of existence for the reader him or herself, then he or she will surely find another un-virtue, I have no doubt! HaHa :D
I certainly agree that there are differences (very much so!) of a cultural nature and that men and women differ in this as well, in fact each person is unique in their own way. Even the form of the day may decide.
It is reflected in the individual himself who wants to do something with this exercise. One does not need to take cultural or gender differences into account here, because one is carrying out a process in an intimate way (you with yourself).
A person who suffers from melancholy, for example, would probably choose a different un-virtue for himself to do the exercise. Telling a fish to save itself from a river flood by climbing onto a tree would certainly be pointless :)
Just go with the flow 😆
I think this is a wonderful approach at describing your concepts. I haven't given careful consideration to these issues before, so seeing illustrations is very helpful.
Yes, good call. It can quickly become unruly when you have too many concepts up in the air.
Maybe it depends on how aware the person is of the "sin" at any given moment. Someone who is aware of their propensity for wrath and takes deliberate steps to change feelings/behaviors, may not be a slave to it or any other sin. Being aware of all sins at every moment is exhausting, however, so very few of us can achieve this level of self mastery, as you point out. Religious practitioners from the east have developed systems to control extremes emotions and behaviors, but they often developed these systems in the comfort of their monestaries, away from the pressures of the real world. So one has to question how applicable their teachings are to the rest of the world. Same goes for the stoics, who are very much in fashion today, they were usually men of means with all the time in the world to think and ponder such matters. So I wonder how universal their teachings really are. We assume that these learned individuals spoke in terms that transcend class, age, culture, and gender. Still, a part of me wonders.
Great topic! Thank you @erh.germany :)
I am delighted by your replies. They give much inspiration to consider what you say and ask.
< Just go with the flow 😆
HaHa! Your humor is top notch!
I hear that you talk out of experience. Thanks.
The spectrum is broad. If one listens within oneself, it is not too much of an art to find out where a weakness lies. One who is absolutely a slave to his inclinations will not take any conscious steps at all to break this habit. All teaching is lost for him.
It is an ideal to strive towards, knowing that there will be no perfection. But without an ideal, there is no direction. I guess the art is to strive lightly and not grudgingly. To be able to alternate between trusting in oneself and trusting in others.
For the rest of your reply:
HaHa! I hear you! And I often find myself asking sceptical questions. Only the mad man has no doubts :)
To this, a memory comes up. I had met with friends that year, a few months after my mother died. The meeting itself disturbed and agitated me in a way I had never experienced before and I was deeply emotionally upset but didn't know why. On the train back I was reading a book about Buddha and making all sorts of angry side notes. I felt great frustration at this detachment and also just had this image of secluded scholars saying intelligent things in their ivory tower while they themselves had no ill-will to suffer.
I felt like Captain Archer from the Enterprise who was once again up against the stoic Vulcans who seemed to come across as condescending and unworldly with their logic to him.
This is unfair, of course, because monastic life and village life have always had a symbiotic relationship where they functioned - at least in Asian traditions, non-possessiveness has been preserved to this day. The monks offered spiritual guidance and received physical food in return, to simplify briefly. They offered practical as well as spiritual action and ritual in matters of village affairs, as well as assisted in deaths and ceremonial farewells to the departed. And so on. One "cell" cannot be without the other "cell". It is precisely the differences between these cells that makes the whole alive and functional, so they are accepted as positive.
Where they have no clue from my point of view as a woman is the issue of birth and female affairs and the whole space of motherhood (breastfeeding, carrying, singing, blood, placenta, midwives etc etc). The priests, from my point of view, were all lacking in that they could not accept the authorities of the priestesses as equals in the sense of women (a very great weakness and something the gentlemen have to work on to this day). Celibacy is a great strength, but at the same time an Achilles' heel. Since Buddhists look upon birth - and through it rebirth - less joyfully than the West, they naturally have little fun with this issue. :D LOL
I could write endlessly about it!
P.S. Here, I have written extensively about the monastic life. It's a very long read and you have to take time. I did not add my critical thoughts in terms of females affairs. Still, that stays with me as something, which is not ideal.
I used to think that everyone should absolutely engage in breaking these habits. Now I realize that being a slave to inclinations is an evolutionary advantage for some people.
Well said!
I'm sorry to hear your mother passed away. This quote struck me, as I cannot imagine someone being angry when reading about the Buddha. It must've been a terrible book. I recommend Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, but I get the feeling that you already read it.
One thing to consider is that the concept of 'detachment' is often misinterpreted in the west. The word detachment has negative connotations in terms of aloofness or not caring. This is the problem with translating concepts from another language. Detachment as a religious concept is better translated as "active detachment," it's not about ignoring the problem but being aware and actively unhook your habitual patterns from it. Or so I understand it...
Yes, that's why they have the begging bowl and are only allowed few possessions. Unfortunately, issues pop up from time to time regarding offerings, but the original sentiment still stands.
I saw a movie about a buddhist apprentice who gave up his life in the monastery for the life of a villager. He got married and soon became a family man. At the end of the movie, he decides to give everything up and return to the monestary. At that point, he's confronted with his wife, who gives him a good tongue lashing. One excellent point she made was that we always tell the story of Siddhartha after he left his own family to become a wandering aescetic and eventually the Buddha. What about his wife? She remained behind taking care of the children and the household. How come no one tells her story?
Hehehe
Thank you for pointing me to your other writings. I'll be sure to check them out.
I don't know if it is an evolutionary advantage but just an advantage, for as long as it's advanced by enough energy.
Thank you for being kind. I am fine with the fact that my mom died, she got 86 and had a long life and she was, as far as I can tell, ready to die. I talk to her sometimes or think of her when things remind me, as in this dialogue with you. I like to hear her voice inside my mind when she spreads her words of wisdom or otherwise:)
It was a terrible book :D -lol! But I think it wouldn't have appeared as terrible as it did, for I was totally under the influence of the weekend, spent with my friends and feeling nevertheless lonely and despaired.
You are right, I already read "Siddhartha" from Hesse :)
I am very much aware of the translation issues and how misunderstood things can be. "Detachment" is one of the terms which can be interpreted differently. I learned within the studies of Buddhism to follow the origin of words and not attach emotion to those terms which help me studying a teaching. For me, it simply means not to attach myself too strongly to an identification, so when I lose it, this will not shatter my life. Negatively, it can be understood as "careless" or "heartless" while it means the opposite:)
It really goes against our Western understanding of helpfulness and support, where I would say we tend to be very self-sacrificing, constantly pushing ourselves too far, and on top of that pushing ourselves too far, demanding that others push themselves and go beyond their limits, when that has already been done and is only stressing everyone out unnecessarily.
It is rather counterproductive if, for example, I spend all my energy to help someone, they then experience no self-efficacy and I end up sick and exhausted. I call this "dumb".
Yes, thank you for the reminder! I saw that movie, too!
Do you have an explanation for this? I mean, this over-emphasis on the non-domestic? Can the male be understood as "spirit" and the female as "body"? But when I formulate it in this way, I want to take it back. LOL
The work of a bodhisattva is never done until Buddhahood is attained ;)
I think that there is an imbalance in what we consider important in our cultures. Raising a child is one of the most important and difficult things, but we don't value it the way we value someone who does something in science, politics, technology, sports, etc. It may not necessarily have anything to do with gender. It just so happens that in our division of labour, women took care of the household and men could go out there to explore and do things. So traditionally, there have been more opportunities for males to do something that seems impressive. Of course, this division of labour has changed to a certain extent, but not the value we place on parenthood vs other activities.
Body vs spirit? Another rabbit hole! ;)
HaHa :D - A bodhisattva will probably agree with me that sacrifice my spiritual and physical well being will be of no good for my karma.
Yes, the specialization in labor is one explanation I thought of, and also talked about in that long article I forwarded to you. Makes a good addition in here, too. thank you.
You need not to answer on this. I use this space as a reminder for me - maybe will write about it one day.
So what the men did, basically acting against their own teachings, is to avoid worldly, that is, sexual desires in the form of abstinence and celibacy. The logical consequence of this was the avoidance of the feminine and thus their demonisation as impure seductresses or ambitious heads of households (to support themselves and their brood). The intelligent teachings themselves state that "avoidance" is merely the other side of the coin and that any persona non grata will become more of a problem the more one tries to banish this persona. The banishment of sexuality and thus of fatherhood and motherhood led quite naturally to what today is probably psychologically called "repression" and "compensation of repression".
I consider the Christian Reformation, i.e. the abandonment of celibacy within the priesthood, to be correct, but here too I would not be dogmatic and now demonise celibacy by all means. They should remain personal decisions, not imposed or punishable ones.