Did the Buddha Get Angry?

[@DougsDharma]

🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook

[@butbunsin9044]

😂🎉after buddha go to nirvana. Religious divide to 20+ but only Theravada buddhism have 99% remain the same while the rest is not. Mahayana religious said right hand man of buddha who obtain arahant anger of buddha and left buddha and wish to become bodhisattva hahahha. It is completely ridiculous and shameful. When arahant jealous or anger come from? It is completely joke story. When buddha anger come from? Buddha is also arahant. When you obtain arahant mean you obtain supreme being level, the highest states. That why buddha said india would not have buddhism and also buddhism will be over after 5000 years 😂🎉.

[@dylantindall5573]

Anger expresses frustration about a situation and so reveals the mind. Hatred is an invested anger - a desire for active destruction of a blamed cause or being that frustrates, where that investment is held as a value or effort superceding reflection.

[@rei8820]

We don't know the Buddha's tone of voice when he said those words. Supposing his tone was harsh, was there mental identification with It? When ordinary people express anger, the anger remains with them for some time after. Was the same for the Buddha? Did he carry the anger afterwards?

[@butbunsin9044]

Only Mahayana religious said so. Real buddha never be anger because he obtain arahant. Truely sad for people who doesn't know what is arahant and continue spread misinformation base on Mahayana religious. 😂🎉

[@Fascistbeast]

Buddha was a man who practiced meditation daily. Whatever negative emotions he may have had I’m sure was dealt with fast 👍 He was a man obviously but not a God. Lead by example for others

[@thanwin2855]

​​@@butbunsin9044 No Arahat Magga killing anger. Anagami Magga killing anger. Sotapatti mgga Sakadargami mgga Anagami mgga Arahatta magga Buddha killing anger with anagami magga

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

A "defiled" state is one that distorts perception. Anger distorts perception. Siddhartha may have briefly experienced anger after enlightenment, but he would never have subjected others to his anger. It's important to understand that what Siddhartha actually "said" and "did" varies greatly from the written accounts. In my experience, anger has always distorted my perception and caused harm to myself or others. I was taught to express explosive anger via the example that I grew up with. I did not overcome my "training" until I read Thich Nhat Hanhs book about anger. Currently, I rarely feel anger and do my best to maintain a clear perception. Anything that creates tension distorts perception. Please be aware of this. Take care. You got this.

[@DougsDharma]

For sure, anger is not a skillful state in Buddhism. That said, it is critical that we not suppress or become aversive to anger, since that only compounds the problem. Face it when it arises, and make an effort not to act upon it.

[@engleharddinglefester4285]

Anger vs hatred is an excellent explanation.

[@Gpenguin01]

This is a great video. I think Buddha using harsh language can be understood as a form of "skillful means.” We can view these instances as the Buddha expressing compassion through stern words to provoke realization and growth in his disciples. Rather than viewing these as moments of anger, they can be seen as calculated actions aimed at benefiting the listener in ways that more gentle speech might not. This aligns with the idea that the Buddha's actions were always rooted in wisdom and compassion, even when they appeared harsh on the surface. How do we learn from this? We can integrate an understanding of the nature of anger through the lens of Buddhist teachings and use it as a tool for personal development and wisdom. This is mindfulness and self-reflection. We should work to transform adverse emotional states into opportunities for insight, rather than suppressing or acting out based on these emotions.

[@teddyboragina6437]

the way I see it, we have a language problem. "feeling" anger, and "being" angry are two different things in this context. The way I'm reading this, its fine to FEEL angry. to feel that bubbling rage. but it is NOT fine to mindlessly and skilllessly act on that feeling. To yell and punch because one feels anger is wrong. one should only yell and punch if such a thing is the proper skillfull response, and, that punching and yelling may even be the proper response when one is not feeling angry. That the emotion and the action are separate, and to tie them together, is to defile ones self.

[@DougsDharma]

Agreed. If the underlying tendencies to anger have been uprooted in the enlightened mind, then from where would the feeling of anger arise?

[@y0k0z00na]

He who holds back anger, him I call a real driver. Others here are only holding the reins. I love that chapter. And On Earnestness, chapter 2.

[@willmosse3684]

What I think about these apparent contradictions in the Suttas is that they show that being a human is complicated. What they imply to me is that absolute and permanent enlightenment is not a real thing. I think that we should view Buddhahood and Arahanthood as symbolic exemplars of what we should strive for, not as real world states of affairs that people achieve in some absolute sense. This does not take away from the profundity of the dharma, but makes it more human. More for everyday people like all of us.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, it's quite possible that enlightenment isn't a permanent thing.

[@butbunsin9044]

​@@DougsDharmastop thinking this way bro. You going to be like Jainism lol. Buddha use spreme review over 40 kab = 40 earths time and see those people never born in heaven base on your highest state in england man. When they died they go directly to hell. Why? Because they view like you😂🎉. It is not easy to obtain buddha state. People misunderstand what is enlightenment? Buddha is also arahant. Enlightenment use only buddha. Can any other arahant use word enlightenment? No. But your england man use widely😂🎉. Other people who obtain arahant state base on achieve or understand. Enlightenment can be use only 1 person each time that is buddha. While england man doesn't understand. Create word enlightenment sound cool but use widely ahhaha. Sound ridiculous. Buddha is the one who gather a lot of bun? (Doesn't exist in english language). Bun =money currency base on good deed and sacrifice. While buddhood gather extreme bun which human or non human can't do easy. Enlightenment as you know in buddhism Theravada Is only buddha can use because he who has 1. Alot of bun. 2. Key to open door of nirvana for everyone 3. Knowledge beyond human and non human. 4. Ability to know all things, mind of human and non human, see all close door and secret door. He can see everything even queen have sex with dog and no one know but buddha can see or know it. 5. Voice can silence all human and non human. 6. Ability to give all human and non human plenty of bun base on respect , pray, offer, sacrifice to buddha. That why most people pray and respect to statue of buddha because they want to gather bun which england man doesn't understand what is bun? No england man or buddha monk who can speak english can tell you that. It is fact. They teach only 4 noble truths sound easy lol. Doesn't have a clue what is bun? Without bun than there is no buddha it is buddha's word. Bun is most important unless you obtain nirvana arahant than bun is no longer need. 7. Etc..

[@FaithBridges-u1c]

Doug, I am always greatly appreciative of your scholarship, knowledge and commentary. Your videos have helped me to deepen my practice. Thank you!

[@DougsDharma]

You are very welcome! 🙏

[@ongjunxiang8212]

Perhaps the Buddha knew that certain people learn better via getting "scolded with harsh words" i.e. tough love, whereas other people learn better through patient guidance. And perhaps some other people learn better via being "thrown into the ocean and figuring it out on their own". Perhaps the Buddha knew the different characters and propensities of his disciples and he chose to use different approaches for different students. That's just my take.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, that's the traditional understanding.

[@tanned06]

Dosa being the grossest defilement can manifest in a wide spectrum of negative mental states such as anger, hatred, aversion, ill-will, jealousy and stinginess. These mental states have been completely uprooted at the latent tendency (anusaya) and will never ever arise again even in a noble person attaining the third stage of awakening, non-returner. To think the Buddha still has anger is a misunderstanding of the teachings.

[@bam111965]

Thank you once again. I see no place in the Suttas where the Buddha expresses anger or encourages anger. Calling people "foolish man" may be considered rude in a modern context. In his time, in his culture, in his language, who knows if it was seen as such. It may also just be a useful repeated phrase for learning the chants and therefore added later as an aid to passing down the teachings. But even today, I think many people are fools and I usually feel no anger at all towards them. I just think they're fools, and as a lawyer, I sometimes have occasion to tell them so because it is sometimes important to do so. It is definitely harsh speech to call someone a fool to their face, but in the right circumstances, it can be very helpful. Some of my own most profound insights have been triggered by someone saying something to me I found insulting - sad, but true. I think we need look no further than the descriptions of the 4 (or 8 if you wish) levels of enlightenment to see how and when anger disappears. It is not even until one reaches Once-Returner (Sakadagami), that one has "begun" to weaken ill-will, which I read to include anger. So, the vast majority of followers, monks and lay alike, would need instruction on how to deal with anger until they reach beyond this stage - which is why Buddha taught better and worse ways of dealing with anger. These teachings were not for the enlightened, who need no such instruction (or really any instruction at all). There is even a specific story of a lay Stream Enterer who kept doubting himself because he would lose his temper with his employees and the Buddha kept reassuring him that he was still a Stream Enterer even with this repeated imperfect action.

[@xiaomaozen]

Thanks and love from Germany! ❤🐱🙏

[@DougsDharma]

Thank you too! 🙏😊🐈

[@missmerrily4830]

Such an interesting topic! In a way I suppose it's immaterial whether anger is actually useful because we certainly all will get angry at times, but I do believe anger's also useful. To begin with it shows us yet another phenomenon which arises, remains for a while, then dissipates. People aren't generally perpetually angry. It's what we do with our anger that's important and relevant. In a state of anger we are unlikely to act skillfully, as an angry state of mind can completely take us over if it becomes rage. When we see anger at work, we can learn from it, so we see it happening, and ask ourselves where we are going with it. When we learn to recognise the signs or anger arising, we can decide what action we can or should take. I do like that stanza in the Dhammapada which urges us to keep anger in check and to use the reins rather than passively just hold them. Anger is very powerful. It can create enemies for life, start wars, burn and scar. But anger's not always futile. It can make people stand up for themselves, as in the case of a parent maybe, whose child is not, in their opinion, receiving the right, life-saving measures in an illness. While rage and bad words will not advance their cause, a measured anger can give strength to have difficult conversations. Be angry with the situation. Don't be angry with those who believe they are doing their best. It's a fascinating subject and worthy of discussion, so thank your for this Doug!

[@DougsDharma]

You're most welcome! 🙏😊

[@cadelawler3350]

Based on my own personal experience, I don't recall ever seeing a situation in which anger was a useful response or that could have been handled much better without anger arising. The Buddha also encouraged us to reach our own conclusions and this is mine.

[@slohmann1572]

After I started to meditate regularly, I am more aware when anger arises. I also doesn’t control me - it’s the other way around. I think “oh, that’s anger”. It has a different quality, I can’t quite explain.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I think in general anger tends to come up more rarely. Great to hear!

[@gstrathmore194]

1. Yes, there's the possibility that his tone of voice was not angry. 2. But as a secular Buddhist, I don't need to believe that the Buddha was perfect or even that Buddhism itself is perfect. The philosophy is very valuable to me regardless. I'm not enough of an expert to know if it's considered heretical to think it's okay if the Buddha was imperfect, but to me it's okay and therefore to me it's okay to me if the Buddha was "unskillful" enough to be annoyed sometimes. 3. It does lead me to wonder what kind of behavior by the Buddha WOULD cause me to abandon the fundamental philosophy of Buddhism... interesting for me to contemplate. But I can say the Buddha getting annoyed and scolding a monastic would not be it for me. I think if the Buddha were on record speaking to someone from the general community like that, it would be inappropriate. In this case though, these monastics, wholly devoted for life to the study and practice of the philosophy and future teachers of the philosophy, needed to understand it properly to be able to legitimately teach it. If this Sati guy was teaching the wrong thing under the umbrella of the Buddha after having been corrected on more than one occasion, I think that deserves a scolding...and probably by the Buddha.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, and I don't know of any sutta where the Buddha appeared to get similarly angry with a layperson. It was always monastics.

[@GregoryPrimosch]

I interpret the simile of the chariot this way: the chariot is the mind, which when wayward is angry. By holding the reins, we keep the anger from taking the mind off track. The point is not to use anger in any way, but to keep anger from disrupting our minds through self-control.

[@DougsDharma]

Right. But does such anger arise in the enlightened mind?

[@AndyMossMetta]

Do a fan's blades still spin after the electricity is cut.​@@DougsDharma

[@GregoryPrimosch]

@@DougsDharma, I was responding with to the thought that anger might be useful. I interpret the suttas as saying it is always negative. As to whether arhants experience afflictive emotions, there is a good argument to be made that the Buddha experienced sadness at the death of his chief disciples, weariness with old age, and frustration with wayward monks. The idea might be that negative thoughts and emotions arise even in arhants, but that they also disappear quickly since they do not cling to them. That might be a good subject for a future video!

[@CarynConnolly]

Buddha was being fierce!

[@rebeccaowen8699]

My first thought when you read the sutta about the Buddha's reaction to Sāti, was that it felt more like disappointment towards Sāti than anger. This is ofcourse only my opinion.

[@DougsDharma]

It could be, certainly disappointment would have been part of it at least!

[@mapro3948]

I doubt a lot of the traditional interpretations of the Theravadins, but on this matter I go with them - also for pure pragmatic reasons for myself: If it was still possible to have anger (or ill-will) after enlightenment, I wouldn't even bother to set out to this ultra-long path.

[@heathersmith5237]

Anger can give us courage in moments where courage is needed. So, it does have its usefulness. It is only problematic when it is reactive and not useful, Which, for most of us, is most of the time.

[@annemariesatariano4587]

Thank you🙏🌹🌼🌻🌹🙏

[@Filce100]

Hello Doug, I have been following the channel for half a year now and I love the content. On the subject matter, I was troubled with the Sati sutta even in earlier video's considering that the Buddha had some time before the monk's called Sati to see the Buddha' it wasn't an instant reaction, so my question here is did the Buddha at some point neglected the practice, sort of fallen from grace, is that even possible with enlightenment ?

[@DougsDharma]

From the perspective of early Buddhism it is not possible to fall away from full enlightenment once it has been reached. The roots of the unskillful have been pulled up and eradicated, never to return. That at least is what we read from the texts.

[@willmosse3684]

@@DougsDharmaThat is the case “from the perspective of early Buddhism” as we read from the texts, yes. But “is this what we should believe as rational secular people” is another question? If we are serious about being *Secular* Buddhists, then I think that it’s best not to be dogmatic about claims of seemingly extra-human characteristics of religious figures or leaders, even if we think that those individuals were likely incredibly well adjusted and profoundly wise people.

[@DougsDharma]

@@willmosse3684 Sure, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpytoaNtp7N1iqM

[@willmosse3684]

@@DougsDharma Thanks Doug - I’ll check it out 👍

[@ewkeenan]

It seems that the Buddha was not angry based on the text. It was simply a correct statement of fact with witnesses to confirm and an explanation of the harm of the behavior. It was a formal “HR” rebuke from authority (a warning) and it was also a blessing because he stated that Sati would become known for imparting this teaching through his misconduct, which he is to this day. Anger is one of the 3 poisons, and the most destructive one. The Middle Way prescribes patience as the antidote. Anger is destructive, yet the the circumstances and conditions of anger can be useful as meditations on emptiness, the ultimate freedom from the suffering of samsara.

[@yasithperera5700]

This is a topic that can be raised for a person with low shraddha/confidence in Supreme Buddha. A Buddhist whom has gone refuge to Supreme Buddha does so, by reflecting on the 9 qualities of a Buddha. Many times in the Suttas it’s been clearly pointed out that Supreme Buddha has eradicated the defilements and that means anger. A Fully Enlightened being whether a Supreme Buddha, A Private Buddha or an Arahant. They have eradicated all defilements of the mind, the thing called mental suffering is not present within them. Now A Supreme Buddha is the most compassionate being. None is comparable in regards to a Supreme Buddhas compassion. Only another Supreme Buddha can be compared with another Supreme Buddha as equals. In that Sutta, Supreme Buddha used a harsh method to tame Sati, whom was deluded and that misconception itself could have affected other monks minds too. So the quicker the Buddha makes it clear to the monks present, the beneficial it is for the monks. To prevent this misconception from spreading Supreme Buddha said with this hard tone, yet with utmost compassion. Just like how a mother or father might use a harsh tone in regards to their child with unconditional compassion, so that they will not end up dying or suffering due to their own careless actions. The same way the Buddha used such a tone with unconditional compassion to point out the truth in regard to Sati. Again these kinds of question would not arise in people if they have a strong understanding of whom Supreme Buddha is, and who they are going refuge under. And by reading The Debate of King Millinda. In that debate there comes up the question of King Millinda asking Arahant Nagasena, if Buddha was omniscience and full of compassion why did he allow Devadatta to enter the order of monks. And Arahant Nagasenas response was ‘it was because the Buddha foresaw that Devadatta's suffering would become limited that he admitted him to the order. Like how a powerful person might mitigate a criminals punishment from execution to just the cutting off the hands and feet or like how a clever doctor will make a disease lighter by giving medicine , just like so did the Buddha reduce the future suffering of Devedattta’. ‘As after devedatta has finished suffering in the AVICI hell for the rest of the eon, and because he did Kusal while he was in the order, he has the opportunity to be a Private Buddha after being released from the hell.’ (If Devadatta was not admitted into the order, he would not have the opportunity to be a Private Buddha in the future, and he still would have wanted to harm Supreme Buddha. As this was a long samsaric revenge plot by Devadatta, one should read the Jatakas to understand. ) By this alone one should understand the the incomparable compassion of a Supreme Buddha, whom showed such compassion towards Devadatta whom was after his life and even causing a schism with the order. If Supreme Buddha was able to show such compassion towards Devadatta with no anger present at all, then talk or questioning of showing compassion concerning others are groundless. Supreme Buddhas own words from Dhammapadda. 221. “Give up anger, give up conceit, and overcome all bonds of existence. There is no suffering for an enlightened one who does not cling to mentality and materiality.” 207. “One who keeps company with fools will be sad for a long, long time. Living with fools is painful, as is living with enemies. Living with the wise is delightful, like relatives gathered together.” (It’s because of one’s own conceit and misunderstanding/lack of Shraddha that one might have such questions regarding a Supreme Buddha's qualities. Which is okay , we all have different levels of the 5 spiritual faculties, yet the quicker we try to understand whom Supreme Buddha is. The more beneficial it will be for our Buddhist practice. Remember without the arising of A Supreme Buddha , there would not have been this pure Dhamma we all are benefiting from , nor would there be any monks or nuns in this generation. ) 🙏🙏🙏

[@andrewtom8407]

Anger is a result of attachment to our own feelings as well as attachment to what makes us angry. I couldn't imagine the Buddha, as an enlightened being who's void of all attachments, could have displayed any anger. When the Buddha made comments such as calling Sati a 'foolish man', I believe He was not being derogatory but merely stating the foolishness of Sati's behavior. The Buddha always stated things as they are and not from what and how he felt. In modern psychology, we are often told by the experts that we must confront our anger face to face to find out what triggers it in order to overcome them. There are anger management suggestd by experts that help people to control their anger, but what you stated in the video of the Buddhist way of anger management is not simply 'controlling our anger' but also turn our anger into beneficial actions for all involved.

[@0Reel2Reel0]

The Udana 3.6 addresses this subject also.

[@DougsDharma]

Interesting, good find! Thanks. 🙏

[@willieluncheonette5843]

The first sutra: LET GO OF ANGER, LET GO OF PRIDE. WHEN YOU ARE BOUND BY NOTHING, YOU GO BEYOND SORROW. The most important thing to be understood is that Buddha is not saying, “Repress anger, repress pride.” And he is not saying, “Drop anger, drop pride,” either. He is using the words LET GO OF ANGER, LET GO OF PRIDE. The key is in the words ‘let go’. There are people who are full of anger, possessed by anger, possessed by pride. They are insane. Insanity is the climax of pride and anger. And there are people who are afraid of anger and pride; hence they repress them. But a repressed insanity is far more dangerous, because it accumulates. Then you are sitting on a volcano. It can erupt any moment. It will destroy you. It will destroy others who are related to you. It is poison. If one has to choose between the two, expressing or repressing, then expressing is far better, because at least the poison never accumulates. It is thrown in mild doses, homeopathic doses. But if you accumulate, it is no longer homeopathy, it becomes allopathy. Then the doses are big and, sooner or later, your repressed anger will be so powerful that you will not be able to keep it repressed anymore. Then it simply explodes and you are absolutely helpless. Humanity has been taught by the priest, the politician, the pedagogue down the ages to repress anger. The society is not concerned with you, it is concerned only with your outer appearance. What happens to your inner world is nobody’s business; whether you suffer, live in hell inside, that is left to you. Just keep a beautiful appearance, learn etiquette, behave in a cultured way and if you are carrying a hell that is your problem. But the person who is carrying a hell within, howsoever cultivated he becomes, sophisticated, cultured, he remains a wild animal within. Scratch him a little bit and his humanity will disappear, his character will disappear and you will find just the opposite kind of man inside. That’s what happens when somebody drinks too much. A very cultured man, once he is intoxicated, starts being very uncultured. That is his truer self. Alcohol has not created it; it has only removed the barriers, it has only removed the rocks that were repressing it. In the East there has been a secret tradition of tantrikas who go on practicing meditation - and side by side they go on taking drugs in greater and greater amounts for a certain reason. They are not interested in drugs, they are interested in meditation. But they go on increasing the amount of the drug slowly slowly, so that they can remain alert with the drug. It takes a long time, it is a very subtle process of awakening. In the hands of the fools it will be destructive, it will be suicidal. Hence it is a sacred tradition. Only the master gives it to the disciple - and very rarely. If he finds some disciple of such integrity, then only does he give this process: “Meditate and go on increasing the amount of the drug so slowly that it never overpowers you and your watchfulness remains intact.” But the drug will start removing all rocks and it will bring up all that you have repressed down the ages in your many lives. Watching it you will be allowing it to disappear. That is the magic of watching. If you watch something, either it is going to disappear totally from your being, or it is going to be dissolved into your being. If it is something natural, spontaneous, it will be dissolved into your being. That too is beautiful. If it is something not part of your being, extraneous - has come from the outside, is a parasite on you - it will evaporate. The real definition of good and bad can only be this: the good is that which grows with meditation, watchfulness, and the bad is that which disappears as you grow in watchfulness, as you grow in awareness. Awareness has to be the decisive factor. When you become aware of your anger there happens a let-go, because anger is not part of your natural being, neither is pride. They start evaporating. As the sun of awareness rises in you, they start evaporating like dewdrops in the early morning sun."

[@smlanka4u]

Avijja (nescience/asymmetry) is like Mara (the lord of death) because a daughter of Mara is Thanha, and Avijja makes Thanha (greed) too. Also, Avijja makes death, and Mara is the lord of death. The 12 links in the chain of dependent origination is the origination of life and death, and it happens during a single mind-moment (3 Khana) called Chitta-Khana. Thanks.

[@smlanka4u]

As I know, the word Mara has 5 definitions (like 5 Natures/Swarupa).

[@paulomoreira995]

Best KZbin Channel

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@nsbd90now]

Perhaps semantics, but I understand "malice" to be the desire to harm others, and is symptomatic of the presence of evil. "Hatred" is just extreme dislike. i.e. I might hate certain types of foods, or musical genres, or even the rival sports team, but all of that is morally neutral. (Indulging hatred can lead to malice, of course.) I hear those Buddha stories as him just using a harsh voice, tone and language, not necessarily out of anger at all. He could have said it in a gentle, teasing way. Anger I guess I understand as _something that happens to me_ and can kind of take me over, and is definitely related to identifying with the ego part of self. I can see intellectually how, if I was in line with reality, there wouldn't be anything that would elicit anger at all. My experience of anger, and what elicits it, are definitely a type of guide to my progress towards existential success.

[@nothingsacred8684]

This is only semi-related, but that first sutra you brought up really got me thinking, about how even consciousness has dependent origination. If Buddha taught that in a sense there is a self but it’s ever changing just like all material things are ever changing, like a river, then how did the starting point of Samsara start in the first place? Wouldn’t the very beginning of the whole thing be an independent origination?

[@DougsDharma]

Samsara is "beginningless" in Buddhism.

[@nothingsacred8684]

@@DougsDharma Does that mean it doesn't have independent origination because it never originated in the first place?

[@hammersaw3135]

I dont think he is saying anger is useful there, I believe he is clearly saying that anger is unacceptable. You can have anger, but tranforming your anger to love is right action. Admitting that anger is a cover up emotion that we use to mask our true emotion of hurting and despair

[@jonwesick2844]

I've read that Once Returners and Arahants are not supposed to experience anger. Have any of you ever met a person like this?

[@DougsDharma]

It's non-returners and arahants who are supposed to have uprooted the fetter of ill will. Hard to know if I've ever met someone like this, since seeing someone without ill will on a handful of occasions doesn't imply much about whether they are still able to get angry or not. For more on the lower fetters see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnyclYGefL-Cma8

[@jonwesick2844]

Yes, I misspoke. It is non-returners.

[@mitrabuddhi]

I enjoy listening to your analysis. I appreciate it. Anger has a special form that distinguishes it from other experiences. One of the characteristics (qualities) of this form is Dukka. An enlightened person can feel and experiences other characteristics presented in anger except Dukka. so because anger is devoid of dukka in An enlightened person's mind, it can't be a cause for an Habitual action by "the self". So it is said that a buddha has no self.

[@mitrabuddhi]

And Over time and as a result of the taming of the self, it is possible that Anger (with all of its characteristics) does not arise at all.

[@mitrabuddhi]

So, the study of Anger can be examined from two aspects: First, studying the causes that lead to the arising of anger and pay attention to the fact that it is possible to prevent the arising of anger even for ordinary people by taming the self. Second, the study of the effect of dukka in the production of karma. Dukka creates movement by putting pressure on the self. So, by eliminating dukka in the mind of an enlightened one, habitual actions are removed and the faculty of wisdom takes control of the movement.

[@butbunsin9044]

​@@mitrabuddhi😂🎉 only Mahayana buddhism which buddha has anger lol😂🎉. Remember arahant doesn't have anger, sad, greed, jealous, happy, misunderstand. Can you obtain arahant? Base on what i know we can obtain level 1 or 2 in our times. 😂🎉 Human will have age 10 years old and died each 100 years human reduce life spand 1 year. Human have short life than human can't create and think or study anything beside kill, se x, etc. Now average human have age around 70 to 74 years old and died. 😂🎉 good luck. 5000 years and now 2500+ more buddhism is over.

[@bradreeg9723]

The Buddha certainly had some sharp, even insulting, things to say to and about Devadatta.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, Devadatta as well, good point. Though some of what he said apparently isn't recorded in other recensions and may be later interpolation.

[@origamicaptain5664]

I don't think I've ever heard a monk state that anger was useful in anyway. When we say "hold the reins", we can just as easily imagine that when the horses are acting crazy holding the reins until they calm down (not angry anymore ) is the right approach. Most monks, at least that I've heard, would claim that anger never arises in an enlightened being. As for the suttas were we it looks like the Buddha is angry, I think we need to consider that this is a translation of Pali text which isn't spoken anymore, in a culture that existed before the end of the roman empire. What we are reading and how this sounded at that time could be extremely different.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@szymborska]

If it is "right" anger, then it is right action- unless right anger is an oxymoron. I think I remember a vajrayana story of an angry buddha lamenting a monk's giving up in a huge rage, when he was so close to enlightenment. The monk then is recharged and continues the path. The Zen master may hit a monk on the head with a stick, but it is supposed to be a wise hit on the head- not a random punishment, and perhaps this will snap them into a correct view.

[@saralamuni]

There is no such thing as right anger but a teacher sometimes has to strike fear into the hearts of students who are unable to learn by any other mean.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, there is no such thing as "right anger" so far as I know.

[@Giantcrabz]

what if we... didn't physically assault people to teach them spiritual wisdom? Maybe it's just me

[@oldstudent2587]

Does 'wrathful' count as angry? In (especially) Vajrayana Buddhism there are wrathful aspects of most buddhas, bodhisattvas, etc. (either Ugra- or Bhairav- as prefixes).

[@DougsDharma]

Literally the word "wrath" is a synonym for "anger".

[@branthebrave]

Angry and honest words out of only great compassion. If you know the origin of actual angry states of mind, you'd know it'd be impossible for an enlightened one and extremely rare for a stream enterer.

[@green-un1oo]

Hey Doug, those exact, same forceful words were also present in the simile of the Water Snake sutta, so I wouldn’t take them so seriously. It’s not plausible that the Buddha used those exact same words or that Aritta and the Sati reacted the exact same way afterwards, so I feel confident in saying that, though a similar event may have occurred in the Buddha’s lifetime, these suttas were specifically constructed to dismantle certain doctrinal errors being spread around. Even so, the suttas are clearly opposed to the idea of the Buddha, or any enlightened being/arahant, experiencing anger - if “enlightened beings” did experience anger then they wouldn’t be enlightened. Here’s a sutta where we clearly see the impossibility of anger in an enlightened being: “The king and his retinue believe that Master Gotama is a perfected one. And yet he still gets angry.” “For one free of anger, tamed, living in balance, freed by right knowledge, a poised one who is at peace: where would anger come from?” - SN 7.2, Akkosa Sutta

[@green-un1oo]

Here's more, I used to keep a collection of useful suttas and agams. “It is like taking a vessel made from a gourd / and filling it with butter to use as a lamp; the flame burning, consuming / will burn up the gourd as well. The angry mind is like this; / it turns on itself and burns one’s wholesome roots. We should never harbor annoyance. / Having sought out anger, disperse it. Don’t be drawn in as if in a maelstrom, / endlessly circling around. And even if there is anger, abstain from harsh speech, / not touching on topics that others wish to avoid. Deeply respecting others’ wish to avoid such topics, / we will never harm them. Taking control of oneself / is of great advantage to oneself. Those without anger, without violence, / those are noble ones. They are disciples of noble ones; / those one should always befriend. Those with anger and hatred / face an obstacle heavy as a mountain But if, when there is anger and hatred, / one can control oneself even a little, then this is called good karma / like the taming of an unruly horse.’” “They who hide no anger within, gone beyond any kind of existence; happy, free from fear and sorrow- even the gods can’t see them.”. “How does he see, how does he behave, the one who is said to be ‘peaceful’? When asked by me, O Gotama, describe the supreme person.” “Devoid of craving before the breakup,” (said the Blessed One), “not dependent on the past, not to be reckoned in the middle, for him there are no preferences. (2) [167] 850. “He is without anger, unafraid, not boastful, not regretful, of speaking with reflection, not restless: he is truly a muni controlled in speech. Free from anger, my rigidity gone, I live for one night along the banks of the Mahi; my hut’s roof is open, my fire out. So if you want, rain-god, go ahead & rain. This snare of Mara, in the form of anger, dwelling in the cave of the heart: cut it out with self-control, discernment, persistence, right view. The wise man would cut out each & every form of unskillfulness. Train yourselves: ‘May we not be blotted out.’ Free from anger & untroubled, free from greed, without longing, tamed, your anger abandoned, free from fermentation, you will be unbound.

[@green-un1oo]

Also, I just realized that the first sutta I provided nearly refutes the idea that the charioteer verse was in regard to Arahants, “Those without anger … those are noble ones.” “Those with anger face an obstacle … one can control oneself even a little … like the taming of a good horse.” We see a similar simile/analogy being used here in regards to one who has not yet abandoned anger controlling themselves like they were taming a good horse (similar to the verse where one is able to keep it in check).

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, though the fact that such words appear in several suttas should make us take them more seriously rather than less: this is something the Buddha did on numerous occasions. He acted similarly when it came for instance to noisy monks.

[@marcusfossa6695]

Being stern can be useful, the emotional state of anger is absolutely not. The only practical use for anger I can think of is that it's a good mindfulness alarm. The Buddha was never angry after enlightenment, but he was often stern.

[@alec4nandes]

I sometimes feel the Buddha speaks harshly to get others to realize their wrong views, but I don’t often interpret it as anger. Sometimes it seems he’s even playing with his followers, messing with them.

[@pvblivsscipio7561]

i feel like the comment section on this channel is typically very level headed and wholesome, but the comment section on this video isn’t really it 😅

[@Giantcrabz]

ironically it makes traditionalists very defensive and angry to have their own holy texts point out that MAYBE Siddhartha wasn't a perfect human being

[@handynas6529]

I tend to think that the apparent angry as displayed in the words of the Buddha are merely conventional reading by us unenlightened beings. The words might sound harsh but they are delivered for its shock value and benefit for the audience and in particular the recipient to wake him up from defiled states. Pretty much like how some zen masters would deliver some of their message in an unexpected way in order to shake up the disciple’s wrong views.

[@DougsDharma]

Sure, it could be. But then how are we to vet our teachers properly?

[@handynas6529]

@@DougsDharma This is indeed the most difficult conundrum and it is further complicated by confirmation bias. Even Chinese Buddhism found this to be a problem where some chan/zen masters are utterly out of control and apply shock techniques for the sake of shock technique. There is even a term for this 狂禅 - kuang chan - which roughly translates to ‘Mad Chan’ and is frowned upon by serious practitioners. I remember a friend told me, the only way to validate a teacher’s teaching is, does it lead to the reduction of thy greed, hatred and delusion, if it does, most likely one is on the right path…

[@saralamuni]

The Buddha has passed the stage of an arahant and therefore has no anger but because icchantikas do not heed the Dharma and can only be taught through fear the Buddha has to manifest divine wrath. Divine wrath is a necessary part of His perfect holiness.

[@SultanOfSuede]

Anger is justified in Christianity, but the problem as St. Thomas says, is it can quickly escape the leash of reason. I don't know how anyone watches the current genocide in the Near East and not become angry at what is being done there. To feel neutral at that kind of injustice seems to only invite an increase in human suffering. It does make me wonder whether Buddhism would've existed for very long in the absence of patronage by monarchs. I recall that Hindus and Muslims eventually physically removed Buddhism from India through violence over centuries. It strikes me that the laity experience defilements to a certain degree because we have sensual lives. Monastics are called to a standard of perfection. Ergo, to treat of anger and lust without that context present can be misleading to a lay audience. If we think that being angry over genocide is a defilement without recalling that we are not ordained is to confuse two very different paths. Renunciation is a very significant change in how one relates to reality.

[@DougsDharma]

Lack of anger, like non-attachment, does not imply lack of caring or "feeling neutral". One can also act out of compassion and kindness.

[@Zimy0]

Is there any Buddhist literature with theories similar to eliminative materialism?

[@DougsDharma]

Well it's impossible exactly to correlate ancient philosophies with modern ones, but the closest would probably be Ajita Kesakambali. I discussed his views a little in my video on the Buddha's six competitors: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6Dbkpqjqbh7f5I

[@y0k0z00na]

Hatred, poison #1

[@fairytalejediftj7041]

Is it not good teaching to try to provoke anger at times so the student can learn from it?

[@DougsDharma]

Hard for me to say, though I don't think the Buddha went for that sort of approach generally.

[@cakeandspoon]

we don't know how Buddha said those words, perhaps Buddha said "foolish man" and those words with a sad voice

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, it is possible that the Buddha spoke very calmly and without apparent anger. Sati's response to the Buddha's words gives some indication that the words were strongly spoken.

[@luizr.5599]

Anger is a healthy emotion according to the modern scientific understanding and that overwrites any Bronze Age ideologies

[@DougsDharma]

Interesting thought, I’m not sure how healthy anger is according to modern psychology. A related question is how the modern psychological notion of healthiness maps on to the Buddhist (or Stoic, or Epicurean, etc.) notion. The latter, more ‘spiritual’ notions of health are more closely related to ethics, and as such go somewhat beyond health in a medical-model sort of understanding.

[@fingerprint5511]

Definitely the Buddha could be forceful, however anger implies Atta and the Tathagata was not identified. Its always about Dukkha and end of Dukkha. If one is seeking to 'get' or 'get rid of' when reading a Sutta then there's the fault. If one expects another to behave how we have idealised how they should behave then there's the fault. Then there is translation 🙏

[@fireatwill8143]

I suppose if, for example you saw your child run across a busy road, it would be perfectly natural to express anger with them. It doesn't mean you hate them does it? Of course it might be very useful later to express how your anger has diminished with an act of loving kindness, so they can take it all in the right spirit. , Otherwise they might hate you! 😡😁🙏

[@DougsDharma]

For sure it would be natural to express anger at them, but would this be the enlightened response?

[@neilsims6819]

The story of Sati is not being presented correctly. The Pali word here is "vinnana", which means "consciousness of." In other words, object oriented or intentional consciousness is what is dependently originated. It's not at all clear that consciousness as such is being spoken about here.

[@DougsDharma]

In early Buddhism, the only consciousness there is is "consciousness of".

[@neilsims6819]

@@DougsDharma sorry, this is a rather long response. Your claim about "concsciousness of" being the only kind found in early Buddhism might be so for the Abhidharma. But this does not seem to be so in the Nikayas. We can, for instance, look at Majjhima Nikāya 49 (Brahma Nimantanika Sutta), and Dīgha Nikāya 11 (Kevaṭṭa Sutta). In both sūtras, Buddha refers to a consciousness that is beyond "the all," a consciousness that is "endless, radiant all around." What he means by "the all" is anything experienced through the six ordinary kinds of vijñāna. This is made clear in the Saṃyutta Nikāya 35:23 (Sabba Sutta) where he describes everything in the "range" of "the all." This new kind of consciousness (vijñāna) is designated in the Pali as anidassanam. This term is used to mean "unbinding" in Saṃyutta Nikāya 43 (Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta), suggesting an unbounded consciousness. In Saṃyutta Nikāya 12:64 (Atthi Rāga Sutta), the word is used to mean "without surface." Thanissaro Bhikku glosses it this way: "…it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Because name and form are brought to an end, this consciousness also lies beyond the consciousness of the jhānas and the formless attainments, inasmuch as the four jhānas are composed of both name and form, and the formless attainments are composed of various aspects of name: feeling, perception, and fabrication. The formless jhānas are also experienced through the sixth sense medium, the intellect. Lying outside of time and space, consciousness without surface would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space…means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time." It's difficult to see what "outside" would mean here, since that seems to be a spatial term. But perhaps this is because all of these descriptions are approximations meant to indicate something "beyond proliferation of conceptual clinging (Pali: papañca)" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4:173 (Koṭṭhita Sutta)). This consciousness is Nirvāṇa. Again, Thanissaro Bhikku explains this as follows: "Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbāna, on the grounds that nibbāna is nowhere else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant’s consciousness of nibbāna in meditative experience, and not nibbāna itself. This argument, however, contains a flaw: If nibbāna is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. There are passages in the Canon …that describe meditators experiencing nibbāna as a dhamma, but these passages seem to indicate that this description applies up through the level of non-returning. Other passages, however, describe nibbāna as the ending of all dhammas …Thus, for the arahant, nibbāna is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two." For further elaboration, see Priestly's book on the Pudgalavada, especially the last chapter, since they use these and other texts. The image is one of Nirvana being a field, the person (pudgala) being a wavelike conformation of that field, and the peak of that wave being the vijnana skhanda. Only this last vijnana is intentional.

[@snthilakarathna4196]

You can see buddha has told some people like this in some suttras. It is that, buddha calls different persons in exact state that those people are in. It can be foolish man, ignorant man, unskillfull man etc. Buddha calls people in right designation for theme because it is the real state that they are in. What do you think? You dont see foolih man a fooolish? Wicked man is wicked .man? Ignorant man is ignorant? in practice ?you see it as an anger for saying right state of people? But without seeing states of people whether it is good or bad, you will not see good and bad. That completly make person ignorant and another foolish or unskill full without seeing right as right thing and good thing as a good thing. In general people need to see right thing as right thing and good thing as a good thing. It make someone to have a right way, right decision.

[@DougsDharma]

Indeed, one should describe things accurately when doing so can be helpful.

[@snthilakarathna4196]

​@@DougsDharma i dont know what you mean. But for someone who is not good, understanding theme on their state (like fool, ignorant etc) is one of way to direct them toward good. Because if someone see wrong is wrong and good is good, they comes to rightway as you may see in the sutra that you explain. Someone may say it is bad because they feel sad for saying thire state and end finaly with a conflection that normal ordinary people who expect always good aspect regardless of they are good or bad may do in general.

[@gorgzilla1712]

Personally I don’t think that the early suttas record word for word what the Buddha taught, or are even all authentic talks from the Buddha. It could just be that this text was constructed after the Buddha’s death to refute inaccurate teaching.

[@DougsDharma]

Well it's possible but this is a text with parallels, so it is unlikely to be very late.

[@xXKillaBGXx]

By being angry, you undo all of your good karma.

[@normalizedaudio2481]

Quick, put away the playing cards. The Buddha is on his way here.

[@xfunktion]

YOU MADE A HUGE MISTAKE. [polish version of comment below] I respect you for your valuable vlogs, from which you can learn various things and expand your knowledge about Buddhism. Although I practice Japanese Zen, which is something completely different than your academic reflections, which sometimes involve a lot of speculation, and Zen practice is precisely about avoiding speculation and engaging in discursive considerations. However, your channel can often be quite a valuable source of knowledge. However, today in this video you made a big mistake.... When talking about anger, you cannot use illustration of Buddha Fudō Myōō (Japanese: 不動明王; Chinese: 不動明王 Bùdòng Míngwáng; Sanskrit: Ācala, Ācalanātha). His name means exactly 'The Unshakeable / Unmoved'. His depiction as an angry 'deity' or 'buddha' has nothing to do with the anger we know from everyday life. Rather, it is a representation of 'determination' in practice and 'being unmoved' towards one's defilements and harmful mental states. When you look at many likenesses (paintings, graphics or sculptures, e.g. the best one I have seen: pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80cala), there is no doubt that this character is not full of anger, but rather 'SELF-DENIAL' (steadfastness). For example, when your knees hurt a lot during the third day of sesshin, but you still sit. And when you think that you can't bear it and that you will probably run away home, you don't give in to these thoughts and continue to sit in Zazen. This is also the situation when you are very sleepy in the evening and 7 p.m. comes, at which time you always sit for an hour in Zazen every day. So, despite the drowsiness, you sit on the pillow and sit, even falling asleep - the three pillars of Zen practice: PATIENCE, PERSEVERANCE, DETERMINATION. I'm talking here about the level of a person who hasn't achieved enlightenment. Of course, this 'being unmoved' will have a much deeper and more spectacular meaning in the case of an enlightened person. P.S. Another thing: In Japanese Zen, shouting or hitting monks with kyōsaku is not an expression of anger, but of Compassion. You should always remember this, even when the teacher shouts at you. However, it is interesting to hear from you that in EARLY Buddhism, anger was clearly and without exception thrown into the bag of negative or useless things. I am undoubtedly a fan of orthodoxy, that is, sticking to the sources, and undoubtedly early Buddhism is the most faithful Buddhism. It is also worth keeping this in mind. Thank you greetings. *** [polish version] ZROBIŁEŚ KOLOSANY BŁĄD. Szanuję Cię za Twoje cenne vlogi, z których można się dowiedzieć różnych rzeczy i poszerzyć swoją wiedzę na temat buddyzmu. Co prawda praktykuję japoński Zen, który jest czymś całkowicie wręcz różnym, niż Twoje akademickie rozważania, w których wręcz dużo czasem spekulacji, a praktyka Zen polega właśnie na unikaniu spekulowania i wdawania się w dyskursywne rozważania. Jednak Twój kanał niejednokrotnie może być dość cennym źródłem wiedzy. Jednak dziś w tym wideo zrobiłeś wielki błąd.... Nie możesz mówiąc o gniewie dawać jako ilustrację Buddhy Fudō Myōō (jap. 不動明王; chin. 不動明王 Bùdòng Míngwáng; sans. Ācala, Ācalanātha). Jego imię oznacza dokładnie "Niewzruszony". Jego przedstawienie jako gniewnego "bóstwa", czy "buddhy" nie ma nic wspólnego z gniewem, który znamy z codziennego życia. Jest to raczej przedstawienie "determinacji" w praktyce oraz "niewzruszoności" wobec swoich skalań i szkodliwych stanów mentalnych. Kiedy obejrzysz wiele podobizn (malowideł, grafik lub rzeźb, np. ta najlepsza jaką widziałem: pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80cala), to nie ulega wątpliwości, że ta postać nie jest pełna gniewu, a raczej "SAMOZAPARCIA". To choćby to, kiedy podczas 3 dnia sesshin bolą Cię mocno kolana, ale nadal siedzisz. I kiedy masz myśli,że nie wytrzymasz i że chyba uciekniesz do domu, to jednak nie dajesz się tym myślom i siedzisz w Zazen dalej. To choćby ta sytuacja, kiedy wieczorem jesteś bardzo senny, a przychodzi godzina 19:00, o której zawsze codziennie siedzisz przez godzinę w Zazen. Więc pomimo senności siadasz na poduszce i siedzisz, nawet przysypiając - trzy filary praktyki zen: CIERPLIWOŚĆ, WYTRWAŁOŚĆ, DETERMINACJA. Mówię tutaj o poziomie osoby, która nie osiągnęła oświecenia. Oczywiście ta "niewzruszoność" będzie miała o wiele głębsze i bardziej spektakularne znaczenie w przypadku osoby oświeconej. P. S. Inna sprawa: W japońskim Zen krzyk albo uderzanie mnichów za pomocą kyōsaku nie jest wyrazem gniewu, a Współczucia. Należy o tym zawsze pamiętać, nawet, gdy nauczyciel na Ciebie krzyczy. Jednak ciekawie jest usłyszeć od Ciebie, że we WCZESNYM buddyzmie gniew był jednoznacznie i bez wyjątku wrzucany do worka rzeczy negatywnych, czy też nieużytecznych. Jestem niewątpliwie fanem ortodoksji, to znaczy trzymania się źródeł, a niewątpliwie wczesny buddyzm to buddyzm najwierniejszy. Warto mieć to również na uwadze. Dziękuję pozdrawiam.

[@DougsDharma]

I am aware of the thumbnail, that's why I included the name of the Japanese deity in the information box. However it is a convenient image to get across the idea of the video.

[@xfunktion]

I understand that you probably realize this. And I understand that in your eyes this picture can be understood correctly. In fact, my comment was not directed at you, but at all those who could possibly see anger in Fudō. Even my first line of comment is specifically 'provocative', you could say clickbite-like, because I want as many people as possible to see this addition. In my tradition, the greatest emphasis is always placed on the practice of Zazen, and therefore on the necessary elements: determination, perseverance, and the essence of samadhi, accompanied by immovability. That's why I wanted to emphasize this. Regards.

[@spacendxinfinity9081]

From my learning of Theravada Buddhism in my country (burma), my understanding is as follows. "Abandon greed and I guarantee Non-return. Abandon anger and I guarantee Non-return. Abandon delusion and I guarantee Non-return." So it is impossible for any feeling of anger or other defilements to arise in Buddha's mind. There is no room for discussion because if it is anger it would go against the entirety of Buddha's teaching. However, as you suggest Buddha does seem "angry" in these examples. But the reason to me is clearly not anger. Buddha once compared himself to a horse tamer. Just as a horse tamer would use a softer approach when dealing with good horses and a harsher and tougher approach when dealing with bad horses. The goal is simply to tame the horse. Being free from all defilements is the most fundamental quality of the Buddha and if anyone says otherwise they would be misrepresenting him.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, this is the traditional understanding.

[@pedestrian_0]

i bet these vids would look even more amazing with proper HDR effect

[@Jacques.dAnjou]

Before Buddha became enlightened he had all sorts of emotions. He did not carry away with them yet he displayed them. As would any human being. He had anger, fear, drought and hunger. There were cravings. Stop pretending Buddha was a God. He had attachments like all of us. There is no path to truth without attachments.

[@DougsDharma]

The examples I mentioned occurred after the Buddha became enlightened.

[@5piles]

heavily opinionated psychotic physicalists unite!

[@robinkneepkens4970]

To me it feels like the 'anger' and harsh words from the first example may have been judged by the Buddha to be the most effective way to communicate his teaching at that moment. It certainly has its merits now at least, inciting discussion about these very human experiences and how to best deal with them. 🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊