 |
| I nodded off in Zen, better beat me, too, Guru! |
- Q: Like, do Buddhist monks have emotions, like, do they get angry?
- WQ: What do you mean?
- Q: Like, do they get angry?
- WQ: What, like, humans?
- Q: Yeah, like, or like regular non-monks.
- WQ: People? Are you asking if monks are people?
- Q: No, I'm asking, do they, like, have emotions?
- WQ: What do you mean?
- Q: Like, do they get angry?
- WQ: But isn't anger an emotion?
- Q: Yeah, like, exactly, right?
- WQ: So you mean you're asking if monks are humans, who have emotions, and one of those emotions is anger, so do Buddhist monks, who being human and therefore not beyond emotions, one of which is anger, will they experience that emotion?
- Q: Exactly.
- WQ: No.
- Q: No???!!! But, like, you just said they're human with normal emotions like any other humans.
- WQ: Yeah, sure, they have human emotions, and anger is a human emotion, but they don't have anger.
- Q: Like, how, how could they not have anger?
- WQ: Exactly, right? I mean, they must, if they're human. They're human, right?
- Q: Yeah, like, aren't they?
- WQ: They look human but I don't think they could have anger.
- Q: Like, how not?
- WQ: Exactly. You're right. I mean, but they're monks. I always see them so well behaved, well, not always.
- Q: Aha, like, so you have seen them angry?
- WQ: What the human ones?
- Q: Yeah, like, aren't they all human?
- WQ: I thought so, but then someone asked me if they get angry, so now I'm not so sure.
- Q: Like, wouldn't they, if they're all human?
- WQ: Yeah, I'm just yanking your chain. I've seen some angry. I've seen some so self-possessed as to be unflappable and they won't show it. Almost all of them are very well behaved. It's very odd to see one who isn't disciplined enough to behave. Except in Thailand, the temporary ordination novices look just like monks. People wouldn't know that's not a monk and so might think it is. But they're usually very well behaved, too, because they're just temporary and will soon revert to household life.
- Q: So, like, they get angry?
 |
| Rev. Dr. MLK, Jr. and Thay/Thich Nhat Hanh |
WQ: I guess that depends on what we mean by "get angry" because for you and me, if we get angry, everybody's going to know it. We're going to yell, cry, sulk, act out with exasperation, sarcasm, or less than 100% loving kindness. There's Engaged Buddhism, which is good, following the social justice work of Thich Nhat Hanh and MLK Jr. during the secret U.S. War on Buddhist Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. And there's Enraged Buddhism, where some monks think it's okay to hurt people who hurt you -- rather than turning the other cheek, amping up the sympathy and special counter-emotions called The Four Supreme Abidings, which are positive emotions that counter our common base behavior of anger, callousness, envy/jealously, and favoritism.- Q: Like, what could counter those?
- WQ: Anger is countered with loving-kindness (boundless-friendliness), callousness with compassion, envy with joy in the joy of others (mudita), and bias with equanimity or seeing everyone as the same in receiving these positive emotions and intentions from us, not more because we like them or less because we don't (which is called upekkha or "looking on at all with a sense of balance and ease, a fairness and impartiality).
 |
| The miracle is not his bad choice but that he remains calm. He neither clings nor identifies, likes nor dislikes. It's only feeling, pain, body, like Bahiya of the Barkcloth. In jhana, one is safe. If enlightened, one is free of all suffering. Was Aaron Bushnell? |
- Q: Like, can anyone really do that?
- WQ: Yeah, anyone can. Imagine if we had been practicing that since childhood. Do you think we'd have any good mental karma stored up?
- Q: Like, yeah.
- WQ: And we might even say nice things, pleasant things, friendly and inoffensive things, for good verbal karma?
- Q: Yeah, like, of course.
- WQ: Then might we even think good things about people and the living beings we meet for the generating of good mental karma?
- Q: Yeah, sure, like, if we're saying nice things and doing nice things, we're probably thinking nice things.
- WQ: ALL of us?
- Q: Well, like , anyone who practices.
- WQ: So you're saying the ones who practice?
- Q: Like...well, yeah!
- WQ: But isn't it enough to be human?
- Q: No, humans, like have emotions, like anger, and like if they don't practice, they're going to think, say, and do harmful and offensive things sometimes.
- WQ: Like get angry?
- Q: Like, yeah.
- WQ: But isn't it enough to become a Buddhist monk?
- Q: I don't know, like, don't you have to practice?
- WQ: Yeah.
 |
| Practice for self-control, not to control others. |
Q: So, like, I don't think it would be enough to be human or be a monk...but I think, like, it would be enough to practice.- WQ: But wouldn't I still get angry?
- Q: Like, well, you might, but then it wouldn't get out of hand, or you could reel it in really fast if you slipped and it did.
- WQ: That sounds human, and doable, even for us non-monks. What was your question?
- Q: Like, do monks get angry?
- WQ: Human ones?
- Q: *Laughing* Yeah, human ones, like, that's the only kind, right?
- WQ: Right.
- Q: So, like, yeah, right?
- WQ: Naw, I don't think so. I mean they may act like it, but on the inside, after all that practice, it probably doesn't come up that much.
- Q: But they're still human, so like it'll probably come up a little?
- WQ: Well, yeah, I guess, a little, but with so much practice, they can probably reign it in really quickly or notice it arise and avert an outburst. That's probably why they can behave so well so much of the time.
- Q: Hey, like, I might want to be a monk.
- WQ: If you do, will you get angry?
- Q: Like, I don't know. I hope not. That's why I might want to try it, like, at least a temporary monk that you said.
- WQ: Yeah, good idea, then you can practice so much that even if you disrobe and return to the household life, you'll probably be a lot nicer.
- Q: Yeah, like, right?
- WQ: And if you practice so well that anger hardly comes up, your meditation will grow so great you may have a breakthrough so that it never comes up again.
- Q: Is that possible?
- WQ: Oh, yes. Fully enlightened beings, arhats, don't get angry, though they may have the habit, the residual, the custom of being annoyed, or the symptoms of aversion. But on the inside, it doesn't overtake them anymore. It can't. They can, however, act like it does. The Buddha says some things sometimes in some sutras that sure sound like he's upset or annoyed or finds some people wearisome and vexing, like his brother-in-law Devadatta or the monks of Kosambi who used to like to argue and debate rather than practicing and realizing. The Buddha would distinguish them from great examples of monks such as Ven. Kimbila, his fellow monks (Anuruddha and Nandiya), Ananda, and his ten principal disciples. Two Buddhist nuns, Ven. Khema and Ven. Uppalavanna, were always restrained and able to abide in the Four Supreme Abodes, even if they got sick or were attacked.
- Q: Like, attacked-attacked?
 |
| There is no "punishment" for karma, just nature. |
WQ: One time this guy was praising how not-angry and wise Ven. Sariputta was, the male monastic declared foremost in wisdom, to this other guy who didn't believe him. So the other guy rolled his eyes and told his friend that the reason he didn't get angry was because his friend never saw Ven. Sariputta meet with a bad (anger-inspiring) situation. So to help his friend, he said he'd show him Ven. Sariputta's anger. The friend was surprised. Ven. Sariputta was a good monk, always practicing, a great disciple, a chief disciple, and a special assistant to the Buddha, teaching other monks and bringing them to the first stage of enlightenment before passing them on to the other chief male monastic, Ven. Maha Moggallana, who would continue to teach them and bring them to full enlightenment. (One has to think the same set up was happening with the female monastics, first taught by Ven. Khema, a great disciple, a chief disciple, the female disciple declared foremost in wisdom by the Buddha, then passed on to Ven. Uppalavanna, who brought nuns to full enlightenment just as Ven. Maha Moggallana did for monks). This is almost certainly why the Buddha had four chief monastic disciples helping him train and enlighten tens of thousands of people he met and countless devas most could not see but some could).- Q: Like, what happened to that monk, like, did he get angry?
 |
| He doesn't get angry? We'll see. |
- WQ: Oh, the friend stood in the bushes by the path where Ven. Sariputta passed every morning on his way for alms. We he passed, the man stepped out behind him and punched him in the back of the head as hard as he could then was amazed when he heard Ven. Sariputta look up -- without turning around to see who hit him -- and exclaim, "I wonder what that was" as he continued on his way. The man, startled, started to burn up with remorse, in disbelief that this monk really didn't get angry or want to know who or what hit him or why, and didn't want retaliation, revenge, or even to criticize or condemn. He begged the monk's forgiveness, and Ven. Sariputta freely gave it. But the humans who saw him do it were not going to let it go. They moved in to apprehend him to drag him off to the king to request a death sentence for such a [blank] who would hit an innocent monk who wasn't hurting anyone. The man said he felt bad, and had apologized, and his apology had been accepted, and that he didn't want to be reported to the king and punished, certainly not beheaded. It was just an experiment. But the people were furious and were not going to let this matter go, they were not going to drop it, and they were forcibly going to drag him before the king that very day and see to it that the king imposed the higher punishment of death as the mob grabbed him. Ven. Sariputta had to intervene on the man's behalf to save him from the mob, allaying their anger and telling them everything was all right and that the man who hit him was fine with no need for anyone to do anything. The man was astonished. The monk he just punched as hard as he could was doing everything he could to calm the mob that would surely have him destroyed, because no doubt the king would sentence him to death over the mob's testimony.
- Q: Wow, like, did that really happen?
- WQ: It is written so I assume so. The question is, Do you think enlightened Ven. Sariputta got angry?
- Q: Not, like, if he didn't look back. Anybody would have immediately swerved around to look back and see what was happening just to save their lives. Do you think he did?
- WQ: I don't think so, even though he was human and had human emotions. Now he had superhuman positive responses to override human habits of reacting because the Buddha had taught him and the others The Parable of the Saw, a short sutra on how to respond if someone is hurting you.
- Q: How, like, run?
- WQ: That's a good idea. But, you know, if you run and get away from the immediate danger, you won't have outrun the feeling, the emotions, the anger over what happened to you, how unfair it was, how the person got away with it...
- Q: Yeah, like, there's that. What about that?
 |
| Let's cut this one from limb to limb. |
WQ: The Parable of the Saw starts with a question. If someone hurt you, would you get upset -- angry, vengeful, want to strike back, want to force them to stop or not be able to do the same thing to someone else? It might cause you a lot of grief thinking like that, "He hurt me, he wronged me!" With thoughts like that, you're going to be upset and feel a lot of aversion for a long time. That's why it's a good remedy to bring The Parable of the Saw to mind again and again. Forgive (practice khanti, forbearance, tolerance) over and over, every time the feeling comes up. It's not nearly enough to forgive once and think that it's all gone. There's lots of residual, and new feelings of nonforgiveness are bound to arise many, many times. Unless we forgive and forgive again, our reaction to that one act will ruin is over and over again.- Q: Like, what's the parable?
- WQ: Imagine someone comes up to you, grabs you, and starts cutting you limb from limb with a two-handled saw. If you were, toward that person doing it, to vent or give rise to thoughts of anger or revenge, you would not be following the Buddha's teaching on metta, "boundless friendliness." Even toward that person doing that at that time, you should cultivate thoughts of loving-kindness/
- Q: Like, will that save you?!
- WQ: It depends what we mean by "save."
- Q: C'mon, man, quit yanking me. Like, will you live doing that?
- WQ: You might not. I guess you were right. You should run. But if they catch you, stay friendly and kind. Cultivate sympathy, love, agape, concern, and interest in their welfare. Then, in that sense, what harm can they do you? They can't ruin you. Even though they take this body, cause this pain, commit this great injustice, you will not be disturbed if you have been following the Buddha's advice.
- Q: Like, but that takes practice.
- WQ: Practice.
- Q: Like, but how much practice?
- WQ: I don't know, but we should wait until it happens, right? When someone grabs you, holds you down, pulls out the saw, punches you in the back of the head by surprise, THAT'S when you should start practicing for the day someone might insult you.
- Q: Huh? Like, are you serious?
- WQ: No. It won't work then. What's the chance that never having practiced patience, forbearance, tolerance, boundless friendliness, and forgiveness you're going to be able to start when you're being accosted, assaulted, or threatened?
- Q: Like, not much.
 |
| What, I get to choose between the two of you? |
WQ: Not much is right. None at all probably. So the time to practice is NOW. There's only now. There's ALWAYS only now. There is no other time. The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist. Look at your watch. What time is it? NOW. That's the only time it ever is. And if it ever happens those axe-, I mean saw-murderers come for you, you're ready. Now, it's not likely they will ever come. BUT, what do you think, if we practiced that way, that even for the sake of being sawed into pieces, we wouldn't allow ourselves to get angry or vent or give rise even to thoughts of revenge, what would happen if someone verbally assaulted us, insulted us, said something offensive? Could we bear it?- Q: Hah, like, compared to being cut up, what are mere words?
- WQ: Right. Maybe the Buddha was onto something with this crazy teaching in this parable.
- Q: I think, like, he meant it.
- WQ: Yes, of course, but what's more likely to happen, that someone punches us or holds us down and saws us to pieces?
- Q: Like punches us.
- WQ: Not like punches us. Actually punches us. Even that's not likely to happen. But you know what is? Insults, verbal and mental. Someone's staring at us, giving us a hard look, the Evil Eye, smirking, puffing his chest...think you could handle that?
- Q: Of course, like, he didn't even do anything. He didn't even say anything. He's just thinking or using sign language or telepathy. Who cares about that?
- WQ: Well, you know, that's how it happens most of the time. And sometimes words get used. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words?" Thoughts? It'll be easy not to get mad IF?
- Q: If, like, it just stays at thoughts?
- WQ: No, even if it escalates to full on weaponized violence IF we practice.
- Q: Oh yeah, like, I forgot. If we practice.
- WQ: When's that?
- Q: Like, later on?
- WQ: When?
- Q: Like in a little while?
 |
| When I practice, anger doesn't arise to begin with. |
WQ: Oh, I was thinking now because "later on" and "in a little while" do not exist right now. They might exist or come into existence at some time. We only have control of ourselves right NOW. And if we do it now, we're likely to have control of ourselves at other times. Yeah?- Q: Like, yeah. No, not like, for sure. Yeah.
- WQ: I like that. There's a short booklet about it called Positive Response: How to Meet Evil with Good by Acharya Buddharakkhita.
SELF-IMMOLATION: Though Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc made a decision to protest the imperial US War on Vietnam, and it was a bad choice, yet he remained calm and unperturbed during this act of ritual suicide. Why? The US is the greatest purveyor of war in the world, as MLK told us. HOW? Because he does not identify with the pain, nor cling to this body nor to any feelings, pleasant or unpleasant, nor to any idea of "self," he can endure without complaint. He seems deep in meditative absorption (jhana), guaranteeing a good rebirth outcome if he is not yet liberated, in which case he is already free of all rebirth and suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment