Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Dear Shakti Sadhana List: Following is something I found online at http://www.monkeysvsrobots.com I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has anything to add to this topic. My own thought is that enlightened people experience anger. I think this raises a good question: what is enlightenment? "Do enlightened people get angry? Now I'm talking about enlightened as in reaching a higher plane of existence, full on, Buddha-under-a-tree enlightened (as opposed to the I-just-graduated-with-a-BA-in-philosophy-and-now-know-all-the- secrets-of-the-world variety, the war-protesting because it-really-is-a-black-and-white-good-and-evil-and-we're-the-evil-o nes variety, but I digress . . .). A person I know apparently likes to ask this question of just about everyone she meets. Her view is that enlightened people do not get angry because anger is a base human emotion that can be overcome. Usually those with opposing views believe anger is an innate emotion and cannot be overcome. The Webster dictionary unfortunately doesn't give us any help: "a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering." My personal view is that enlightened people would be on a different plane of existence and therefore able to overcome even innate human emotions. But that's just me. The real reason for this article is that I wanted to relay a rather funny story. See, the aforementioned woman, who I must note is atheist because it adds to the humor, was relaying a recent discussion of this sort at lunch to a person who happens to be, in his words, "a lapsed Jew." And yes, I swear, religious affiliations are necessary to note for the humor of the story. His personal view, (from a previous discussion) was that anger is innate and as such must serve a purpose because it has survived through natural selection (in natural selection anything that does not affect survival will degrade and disappear over time, think eyesight in cave-dwelling animals); and that in certain cases is beneficial as a motivational force. Apparently a particularly religious Christian of unknown denomination was eavesdropping (although I think he would describe it as "receiving a message from the Lord") on this conversation between the lady atheist and the lapsed Jew. Anyway, the lady atheist had recently been visiting a friend who's new boyfriend was belligerently religious (you know, the sort that believes anything his religious leader says simply because the man who said it holds a religious title, but doesn't bother to read the "holy script" himself, because why should he when someone is willing to tell him what is in it. But once again, I'm rambling . . .). The two entered into a heated discussion about the topic. She said basically that anger is not an emotion that should be excused as innate and therefore judged "ok;" that it is an emotion that can be overcome and therefore should be overcome, because it serves no beneficial purpose. The belligerent boyfriend's point was that men were made in God's image and therefore whatever emotions we have are present in God, and therefore "right." And therefore an enlightened person (and by the way, he didn't quite grasp the idea of enlightenment; he honestly didn't know what enlightenment was supposed to mean) would still have all the emotions a regular person had because God made them that way. So the lady atheist is relaying all of this to the lapsed Jew, and making fun of the Bible-thumping boyfriend who couldn't back up his arguments, when the two diners are interrupted by the aforementioned eavesdropper, who thanks them profusely for proving that God answers all prayers. See, he had just been praying the night before for help with dealing with his teenage daughters. They anger him routinely and he was feeling guilt for this anger because he didn't know whether God would think the anger justified. He thanked them for being the vessel through which God spoke to him, to tell him that his anger was ok because he is human, and therefore made in God's image, and he also thanked them for reaffirming his faith. Hmmm, interesting. Apparently he heard a completely different conversation than what was being spoken. So apparently, not only is anger innate, and "approved by God," so is the ability to only hear statements that reinforce your previously held beliefs. What do you think? Yell at me, agree with me, start a discussion on whether an enlightened person feels anger all in the forum! I promise to follow human nature and only pay attention to those who agree with me. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 It's funny to me that nobody responded to this. I just read it, catching up with the list, and found it quite thought provoking. I'm inclined to say no, enlighted people do not get angry, as dispassion, detachment and equanimity are all attributes of an enlightened being, according to most spiritual paths involving "enlightenment" as a "goal." (I didn't put those quotation marks in there to be snide, I just think these descriptions are probably huge understatements!) I can think of numerous examples of gurus who have displayed anger to provoke a certain reaction or process in a disciple. In these cases, a realized being will make a show of anger for the sole purpose of someone else's benefit. But later it is usually explained to the shishya that the guru could never trully be angry with the shishya. The gugu's anger is an attack on the disciple's ego, and is therefore an act of compassion. Just asked my Jewish friend, she said that anyone who is completely established in God is beyond earthly emotions, since all they experience is oneness. Oneness encompasses all the emotions, but a realized being probably feels only perfect truth, which cannot be emotionally interpreted. Similarly, she mused that realized beings display a blissful attitude in order to show the seeker something they can relate to, love. Love opens our hearts and minds, and when we associate God with love and bliss, we will pursue that goal more enthusiastically. But enlightenment, she went on, is surely beyond even bliss and love. I'm pretty impressed... thanks for the question, Brianna --- Mary Ann <maryann wrote: > Dear Shakti Sadhana List: > > Following is something I found online at > http://www.monkeysvsrobots.com > > I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has > anything to add to > this topic. My own thought is that enlightened > people experience > anger. I think this raises a good question: what is > enlightenment? > > "Do enlightened people get angry? Now I'm talking > about > enlightened as in reaching a higher plane of > existence, full on, > Buddha-under-a-tree enlightened (as opposed to the > I-just-graduated-with-a-BA-in-philosophy-and-now-know-all-the- > secrets-of-the-world variety, the war-protesting > because > it-really-is-a-black-and-white-good-and-evil-and-we're-the-evil-o > nes variety, but I digress . . .). > > A person I know apparently likes to ask this > question of just > about everyone she meets. Her view is that > enlightened people > do not get angry because anger is a base human > emotion that > can be overcome. Usually those with opposing views > believe > anger is an innate emotion and cannot be overcome. > The > Webster dictionary unfortunately doesn't give us any > help: "a final > blessed state marked by the absence of desire or > suffering." My > personal view is that enlightened people would be on > a different > plane of existence and therefore able to overcome > even innate > human emotions. But that's just me. > > The real reason for this article is that I wanted to > relay a rather > funny story. See, the aforementioned woman, who I > must note is > atheist because it adds to the humor, was relaying a > recent > discussion of this sort at lunch to a person who > happens to be, > in his words, "a lapsed Jew." And yes, I swear, > religious > affiliations are necessary to note for the humor of > the story. His > personal view, (from a previous discussion) was that > anger is > innate and as such must serve a purpose because it > has > survived through natural selection (in natural > selection anything > that does not affect survival will degrade and > disappear over > time, think eyesight in cave-dwelling animals); and > that in certain > cases is beneficial as a motivational force. > Apparently a > particularly religious Christian of unknown > denomination was > eavesdropping (although I think he would describe it > as > "receiving a message from the Lord") on this > conversation > between the lady atheist and the lapsed Jew. > Anyway, the lady > atheist had recently been visiting a friend who's > new boyfriend > was belligerently religious (you know, the sort that > believes > anything his religious leader says simply because > the man who > said it holds a religious title, but doesn't bother > to read the "holy > script" himself, because why should he when someone > is > willing to tell him what is in it. But once again, > I'm rambling . . .). > The two entered into a heated discussion about the > topic. She > said basically that anger is not an emotion that > should be > excused as innate and therefore judged "ok;" that it > is an > emotion that can be overcome and therefore should be > > overcome, because it serves no beneficial purpose. > The > belligerent boyfriend's point was that men were made > in God's > image and therefore whatever emotions we have are > present in > God, and therefore "right." And therefore an > enlightened person > (and by the way, he didn't quite grasp the idea of > enlightenment; > he honestly didn't know what enlightenment was > supposed to > mean) would still have all the emotions a regular > person had > because God made them that way. > > So the lady atheist is relaying all of this to the > lapsed Jew, and > making fun of the Bible-thumping boyfriend who > couldn't back up > his arguments, when the two diners are interrupted > by the > aforementioned eavesdropper, who thanks them > profusely for > proving that God answers all prayers. See, he had > just been > praying the night before for help with dealing with > his teenage > daughters. They anger him routinely and he was > feeling guilt for > this anger because he didn't know whether God would > think the > anger justified. He thanked them for being the > vessel through > which God spoke to him, to tell him that his anger > was ok > because he is human, and therefore made in God's > image, and > he also thanked them for reaffirming his faith. > > Hmmm, interesting. Apparently he heard a completely > different > conversation than what was being spoken. So > apparently, not > only is anger innate, and "approved by God," so is > the ability to > only hear statements that reinforce your previously > held beliefs. > > What do you think? Yell at me, agree with me, start > a discussion > on whether an enlightened person feels anger all in > the forum! I > promise to follow human nature and only pay > attention to those > who agree with me. " > > > > > > Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Hi: Thanks for responding to this. I don't think gurus are beyond all emotion, or that their moments of anger are created to teach their students something any more than our own parents' moments of anger are created to teach us something. As long as a guru is embodied, s/he is subject to human emotion. I think enlightenment means recognizing this and being able to weather the storm with compassion, to be compassionate toward one's own humanity, and to extend that to others in thought and action. If a guru or parent (or teacher, or friend, or enemy) handles her or his own anger in a compassionate way, that would offer a beautiful lesson for anyone to behold. Namaste, Mary Ann , Brianna Mosteller <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > It's funny to me that nobody responded to this. I just > read it, catching up with the list, and found it quite > thought provoking. I'm inclined to say no, enlighted > people do not get angry, as dispassion, detachment and > equanimity are all attributes of an enlightened being, > according to most spiritual paths involving > "enlightenment" as a "goal." (I didn't put those > quotation marks in there to be snide, I just think > these descriptions are probably huge understatements!) > > I can think of numerous examples of gurus who have > displayed anger to provoke a certain reaction or > process in a disciple. In these cases, a realized > being will make a show of anger for the sole purpose > of someone else's benefit. But later it is usually > explained to the shishya that the guru could never > trully be angry with the shishya. The gugu's anger is > an attack on the disciple's ego, and is therefore an > act of compassion. > > Just asked my Jewish friend, she said that anyone who > is completely established in God is beyond earthly > emotions, since all they experience is oneness. > Oneness encompasses all the emotions, but a realized > being probably feels only perfect truth, which cannot > be emotionally interpreted. Similarly, she mused that > realized beings display a blissful attitude in order > to show the seeker something they can relate to, love. > Love opens our hearts and minds, and when we associate > God with love and bliss, we will pursue that goal more > enthusiastically. But enlightenment, she went on, is > surely beyond even bliss and love. I'm pretty > impressed... > > thanks for the question, > Brianna > > --- Mary Ann <maryann@m...> wrote: > > Dear Shakti Sadhana List: > > > > Following is something I found online at > > http://www.monkeysvsrobots.com > > > > I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has > > anything to add to > > this topic. My own thought is that enlightened > > people experience > > anger. I think this raises a good question: what is > > enlightenment? > > > > "Do enlightened people get angry? Now I'm talking > > about > > enlightened as in reaching a higher plane of > > existence, full on, > > Buddha-under-a-tree enlightened (as opposed to the > > > I-just-graduated-with-a-BA-in-philosophy-and-now-know-all-the- > > secrets-of-the-world variety, the war-protesting > > because > > > it-really-is-a-black-and-white-good-and-evil-and-we're-the-evil-o > > nes variety, but I digress . . .). > > > > A person I know apparently likes to ask this > > question of just > > about everyone she meets. Her view is that > > enlightened people > > do not get angry because anger is a base human > > emotion that > > can be overcome. Usually those with opposing views > > believe > > anger is an innate emotion and cannot be overcome. > > The > > Webster dictionary unfortunately doesn't give us any > > help: "a final > > blessed state marked by the absence of desire or > > suffering." My > > personal view is that enlightened people would be on > > a different > > plane of existence and therefore able to overcome > > even innate > > human emotions. But that's just me. > > > > The real reason for this article is that I wanted to > > relay a rather > > funny story. See, the aforementioned woman, who I > > must note is > > atheist because it adds to the humor, was relaying a > > recent > > discussion of this sort at lunch to a person who > > happens to be, > > in his words, "a lapsed Jew." And yes, I swear, > > religious > > affiliations are necessary to note for the humor of > > the story. His > > personal view, (from a previous discussion) was that > > anger is > > innate and as such must serve a purpose because it > > has > > survived through natural selection (in natural > > selection anything > > that does not affect survival will degrade and > > disappear over > > time, think eyesight in cave-dwelling animals); and > > that in certain > > cases is beneficial as a motivational force. > > Apparently a > > particularly religious Christian of unknown > > denomination was > > eavesdropping (although I think he would describe it > > as > > "receiving a message from the Lord") on this > > conversation > > between the lady atheist and the lapsed Jew. > > Anyway, the lady > > atheist had recently been visiting a friend who's > > new boyfriend > > was belligerently religious (you know, the sort that > > believes > > anything his religious leader says simply because > > the man who > > said it holds a religious title, but doesn't bother > > to read the "holy > > script" himself, because why should he when someone > > is > > willing to tell him what is in it. But once again, > > I'm rambling . . .). > > The two entered into a heated discussion about the > > topic. She > > said basically that anger is not an emotion that > > should be > > excused as innate and therefore judged "ok;" that it > > is an > > emotion that can be overcome and therefore should be > > > > overcome, because it serves no beneficial purpose. > > The > > belligerent boyfriend's point was that men were made > > in God's > > image and therefore whatever emotions we have are > > present in > > God, and therefore "right." And therefore an > > enlightened person > > (and by the way, he didn't quite grasp the idea of > > enlightenment; > > he honestly didn't know what enlightenment was > > supposed to > > mean) would still have all the emotions a regular > > person had > > because God made them that way. > > > > So the lady atheist is relaying all of this to the > > lapsed Jew, and > > making fun of the Bible-thumping boyfriend who > > couldn't back up > > his arguments, when the two diners are interrupted > > by the > > aforementioned eavesdropper, who thanks them > > profusely for > > proving that God answers all prayers. See, he had > > just been > > praying the night before for help with dealing with > > his teenage > > daughters. They anger him routinely and he was > > feeling guilt for > > this anger because he didn't know whether God would > > think the > > anger justified. He thanked them for being the > > vessel through > > which God spoke to him, to tell him that his anger > > was ok > > because he is human, and therefore made in God's > > image, and > > he also thanked them for reaffirming his faith. > > > > Hmmm, interesting. Apparently he heard a completely > > different > > conversation than what was being spoken. So > > apparently, not > > only is anger innate, and "approved by God," so is > > the ability to > > only hear statements that reinforce your previously > > held beliefs. > > > > What do you think? Yell at me, agree with me, start > > a discussion > > on whether an enlightened person feels anger all in > > the forum! I > > promise to follow human nature and only pay > > attention to those > > who agree with me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 We can learn a lot from a child. Now this is what I would normally do when my daughter gets angry and can't think of anything to say she will growl at me with this angry look in her face. What do I do? I growl back at her. And we have this few minutes of growling sessions. The loser is the person who stops growling. Then we both end up laughing and we talk: So what you're so angry about? And she is more willing to listen and talk to me this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Hi Nora: Thank you for posting this. We can learn from the interaction between mother child, not just from the child, and not just from the mother. I think this is a nice description of handling anger compassionately Mary Ann , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > We can learn a lot from a child. Now this is what I would normally do > when my daughter gets angry and can't think of anything to say > she > will growl at me with this angry look in her face. What do I do? I > growl back at her. And we have this few minutes of growling sessions. > The loser is the person who stops growling. Then we both end up > laughing and we talk: So what you're so angry about? And she is > more > willing to listen and talk to me this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Om Kali, The mother shouts at the child and shows the sign in the hand that she would beat him if he climbs our the gate . The mother tell the child if she do not eat the monster would grab her. The shastras says the practice is a secret and only revealed to those with pure heart The Divine Mother needs to pretend like angry to make the child listen but the fact is She loves you so much more , so much more that she have to undertake such a pretension for your sake ..................... The enlighten souls are such , the Lord knows the mystery of their action................. Jai Kali !!!!!!!!!! Brianna Mosteller <rubyrapunzel wrote: It's funny to me that nobody responded to this. I just read it, catching up with the list, and found it quite thought provoking. I'm inclined to say no, enlighted people do not get angry, as dispassion, detachment and equanimity are all attributes of an enlightened being, according to most spiritual paths involving "enlightenment" as a "goal." (I didn't put those quotation marks in there to be snide, I just think these descriptions are probably huge understatements!) I can think of numerous examples of gurus who have displayed anger to provoke a certain reaction or process in a disciple. In these cases, a realized being will make a show of anger for the sole purpose of someone else's benefit. But later it is usually explained to the shishya that the guru could never trully be angry with the shishya. The gugu's anger is an attack on the disciple's ego, and is therefore an act of compassion. Just asked my Jewish friend, she said that anyone who is completely established in God is beyond earthly emotions, since all they experience is oneness. Oneness encompasses all the emotions, but a realized being probably feels only perfect truth, which cannot be emotionally interpreted. Similarly, she mused that realized beings display a blissful attitude in order to show the seeker something they can relate to, love. Love opens our hearts and minds, and when we associate God with love and bliss, we will pursue that goal more enthusiastically. But enlightenment, she went on, is surely beyond even bliss and love. I'm pretty impressed... thanks for the question, Brianna --- Mary Ann wrote: > Dear Shakti Sadhana List: > > Following is something I found online at > http://www.monkeysvsrobots.com > > I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has > anything to add to > this topic. My own thought is that enlightened > people experience > anger. I think this raises a good question: what is > enlightenment? > > "Do enlightened people get angry? Now I'm talking > about > enlightened as in reaching a higher plane of > existence, full on, > Buddha-under-a-tree enlightened (as opposed to the > I-just-graduated-with-a-BA-in-philosophy-and-now-know-all-the- > secrets-of-the-world variety, the war-protesting > because > it-really-is-a-black-and-white-good-and-evil-and-we're-the-evil-o > nes variety, but I digress . . .). > > A person I know apparently likes to ask this > question of just > about everyone she meets. Her view is that > enlightened people > do not get angry because anger is a base human > emotion that > can be overcome. Usually those with opposing views > believe > anger is an innate emotion and cannot be overcome. > The > Webster dictionary unfortunately doesn't give us any > help: "a final > blessed state marked by the absence of desire or > suffering." My > personal view is that enlightened people would be on > a different > plane of existence and therefore able to overcome > even innate > human emotions. But that's just me. > > The real reason for this article is that I wanted to > relay a rather > funny story. See, the aforementioned woman, who I > must note is > atheist because it adds to the humor, was relaying a > recent > discussion of this sort at lunch to a person who > happens to be, > in his words, "a lapsed Jew." And yes, I swear, > religious > affiliations are necessary to note for the humor of > the story. His > personal view, (from a previous discussion) was that > anger is > innate and as such must serve a purpose because it > has > survived through natural selection (in natural > selection anything > that does not affect survival will degrade and > disappear over > time, think eyesight in cave-dwelling animals); and > that in certain > cases is beneficial as a motivational force. > Apparently a > particularly religious Christian of unknown > denomination was > eavesdropping (although I think he would describe it > as > "receiving a message from the Lord") on this > conversation > between the lady atheist and the lapsed Jew. > Anyway, the lady > atheist had recently been visiting a friend who's > new boyfriend > was belligerently religious (you know, the sort that > believes > anything his religious leader says simply because > the man who > said it holds a religious title, but doesn't bother > to read the "holy > script" himself, because why should he when someone > is > willing to tell him what is in it. But once again, > I'm rambling . . .). > The two entered into a heated discussion about the > topic. She > said basically that anger is not an emotion that > should be > excused as innate and therefore judged "ok;" that it > is an > emotion that can be overcome and therefore should be > > overcome, because it serves no beneficial purpose. > The > belligerent boyfriend's point was that men were made > in God's > image and therefore whatever emotions we have are > present in > God, and therefore "right." And therefore an > enlightened person > (and by the way, he didn't quite grasp the idea of > enlightenment; > he honestly didn't know what enlightenment was > supposed to > mean) would still have all the emotions a regular > person had > because God made them that way. > > So the lady atheist is relaying all of this to the > lapsed Jew, and > making fun of the Bible-thumping boyfriend who > couldn't back up > his arguments, when the two diners are interrupted > by the > aforementioned eavesdropper, who thanks them > profusely for > proving that God answers all prayers. See, he had > just been > praying the night before for help with dealing with > his teenage > daughters. They anger him routinely and he was > feeling guilt for > this anger because he didn't know whether God would > think the > anger justified. He thanked them for being the > vessel through > which God spoke to him, to tell him that his anger > was ok > because he is human, and therefore made in God's > image, and > he also thanked them for reaffirming his faith. > > Hmmm, interesting. Apparently he heard a completely > different > conversation than what was being spoken. So > apparently, not > only is anger innate, and "approved by God," so is > the ability to > only hear statements that reinforce your previously > held beliefs. > > What do you think? Yell at me, agree with me, start > a discussion > on whether an enlightened person feels anger all in > the forum! I > promise to follow human nature and only pay > attention to those > who agree with me. " > > > > > > Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.