Hi. I just have a basic question and wasn't sure where to post.

I've seen Daniel mention that on accomplishing 4th path the result was only seeing, hearing, etc.. Ie. The bark cloth example.

My question is, if there is only seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, thinking, then how can anger arise? Isn't this the exact wrong definition of that phrase? If you only see or hear, then nothing else arises. If you hear a sound or someone calls you a name, what arises?

And furthermore, isn't anger just tension and heat in the body? Why can't someone who practices meditation as a vocation not see through that? Ie. " Oh, anger again, that hurts. Oh, the absence of anger, that doesn't hurt so much. Oh, it's just heat and nerve tension. Oh, see how it fades and goes. And so, on.

Just seems basic, but I'm not enlightened so that's why I post. Just testing the theory that there are no Arhats. However; if there was I don't think they would really go around stating " Oh, look at me, Mr. Arhat, over here, I have done it." Doesn't seem like an attitude someone like that would take since they are just fine. Perhaps for teaching purposes. Take care. Your doing great. We all appreciate it.

We are social animals, a bunch of hunter gatherers wearing loin cloths and carrying spears, collaborating to face the hardships of life in the jungle ... together.

When we find a bountiful reliable food source, it is in our basic nature to tell our clansmen all about it.

I'm missing something. Who is the angry Arhat in your question? I don't think you need to make it to Arhat to get beyond anger. As you say, anger is not a particularly hard one. Lots of people live without anger. I feel like there could be some backstory to your question.

As to the second part, not suffering doesn't mean not doing anything. 

I'm just hoping for a toadstool and a cool pipe. Maybe some sunglasses. 

Hi Will, welcome. The more complete Bahiya quote is "In the seeing just the seen, in the hearing just the heard, in the sensed just the sensed, in the cognized just the cognized." Anger still arises in this model, since it can be sensed and cognized. Daniel made his mark in part by arguing that enlightenment doesn't eliminate any particular emotion. See this chapter of MCTB for more. 

A big insight for me was that all experiences are comprised of textures, with no thought or sensation or identity being any more special than a mere texture. So I can see what you're pointing to with the "heat and nerve tension" remark. But even after this insight into the construction of experience, it's ultimately still the same experience. I still feel anger. It's tension, it's ripping, it's searing, it's resentful thoughts, it's aggressive planning. Even so, I rarely act out of anger, and I'm very patient with those in my life. 

By virtue of my practice, there is a reflexive total surrender to the flashes of anger I feel. So, in the moment, it can feel intense. But this surrender allows it to enter and exit my system very quicky. And these flashes of anger feel essential to being a human and making wise emotional decisions; once they occur, I gain a more integrated and mature perspective on things, and right action follows. 

Moreover, over the months and years, I've increasingly realized that, outside of horrible pain, the arrangement of sensations in consciousness basically doesn't matter. Enjoyment is not about those sensations; it's about the absence of clinging. Because I don't really cling to anything during my angry moments, it's not stopping me from enjoying the moment nonetheless. 

In sum, I still experience anger, but it keeps me wise, and since I don't cling much, it doesn't cause much suffering.

Edit: And, with regard to arhats and advertising: would you have preferred no one ever clued you in?  

Great discussion. Thanks to John also for encouraging description of experiences of anger. 

I guess there is a variety of hereditary, developmental and circumstantial stuff (short- and longterm) that change how ant particular individual may or may not see and be with different emotional intensities. So what is easy to some before ”enlightenment” might be difficult to another even after that. And the other way around for some other experience. Starting from where one is must be the only way to learn to take stuff as it crashes into experience. 

So true. If I didn't know better, I'd think my Indiana-raised uncle was an arhat.

Because there can be the seeing touching, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking, knowing of anger. No, the sutta is pointing at a direct sensory experience of reality in which any possible arising phenomena can be known as simply arising without necessitating a sense of self, a self delusion or pattern of craving.
​​​​​​​


Yes but its also part of a complex of trauma and identity, suffering and craving, which can take people many years and often decades to thoroughly penetrate. It is an extremely challenging thing to do. Particularly as the identity knot is unbound and more and more of the identity is revealed to be transient and more and more of the trauma object we've built our life around is revealed to us as something we must open, heal and release. That's all very painful stuff and takes time to integrate and requires careful navigation otherwise one can easily make mistakes. Mistakes are the norm because people are imperfect.

 

That's an interesting theory. Have you been testing it for awhile? I personally think the best way to test it is to become an Arhat. Maybe, give that a shot !

​​​​​​​I don't think any of us can make any kind of claims about what any individual or group of people who are or aren't arhats might or might not do. To assume that any kind of person must necessarily operate within frameworks we ascribe them is a deeply unhealthy way to relate and I strongly advise against it.  

​​​​​​​- Hell yeah

This seems to be coming up a lot for some people... Ahem... So here is the party line: This is my attempt to distinguish the traditional teachings from interpretations that might conflate all "negative affect" with unavoidable suffering.

The Buddha does repeatedly and clearly state in core teachings, such as the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (the Discourse on Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion), that the suffering (dukkha) which can end is specifically the suffering born of craving (tanha). This is articulated in the Four Noble Truths, where the second truth (samudaya) identifies craving as the origin of suffering, and the third truth (nirodha) describes the cessation of suffering through the complete ending of that craving. Craving here encompasses not just desire but attachment, aversion, and ignorance that fuel the cycle of rebirth and dissatisfaction, leading to experiences like birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, and mental anguish.

This view is the single most fundamental traditional perspective on the Buddha's work across schools like Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. The Four Noble Truths form the foundational framework of Buddhism, often described as the "essence" of the Dharma, with the cessation of craving-based suffering as the path to liberation (nirvana). In this context, not all phenomena (like physical pain or fleeting emotions) are inherently "suffering" to be eradicated; rather, the Buddha focuses on ending the self-perpetuating mental anguish arising from clinging or craving, allowing one to experience reality with equanimity.

​​​​​​​

Simply, enlightenment is not a cessation of emotions, but the ability to stay open and grounded in the face of them. The concept of non-reactivity confers this reality in it's title. If nothing arose, what would there be to NOT react to? 

I thought this was what Daniel was writing about in his book:

https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-theravada-four-path-model


I assume this implies that you still experience anger but you don't have an aversion to it, and you don't have an attachment to not being angry. The anger just comes and goes. It's part of nirvana with remanider.


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58d013bbe58c6272b30dad0b/t/59bc14e0a9db09bcbe5c8c5d/1505498339437/0201_0300.pdf

Yes, Kettu, that is a good point. We start from different places, and our individual experiences mean we also live in different worlds even after gaining the fruits of practice. A soldier on a battlefield, a monk in a monastery, and a prisoner in a cell, for example, could be expected to have a different mix of emotions. A commonality, however, might be a lack of compulsion to identify with and engage in emotional responses that arise. This lack of compulsion can lead to deconditioning; if a person is no longer carried away by anger, for instance, then anger is less likely to arise. Someone who once flew into a rage when cut off in traffic might first find this changes to a wave of emotion washing past them, rather than being gripped by it. With time, they might not feel anger at being cut off in traffic at all, simply because that programming ceased to be reinforced. But if somebody snatched their kid and made a run for it, you would still expect anger to come up and do its job of propelling them after the kidnapper.

I would emphasise that kidnapping is rare, and having the potential for an emotional response is not the same thing as habitually having that response.
Another thing to consider is a person's original relationship to an emotion. Some people enjoy anger, others don't. Some people believe anger is morally required and/or socially beneficial, while others hold the opposite view. As a parallel example, some people enjoy fear enough to watch horror movies and ride rollercoasters. Even after being liberated from unwanted, compulsive fear, they might still enjoy a slasher flick or a trip to the amusement park.

In general, understanding what the long-term benefits of practice might be is easier if you are willing to accept a range of related outcomes, rather than a model that should look the same for everyone. I think Will may be looking for something cut at dried that he can use to decide, Yes, Arhats exist or, No, they don't.  Because Arhantship is not something that can be measured with a blood test, it will always be a subjective decision. It's possible to set up the definition so that nobody could ever be one, and it is equally possible to set it up so that everyone is one. You are free to see things in whatever way is best for you. Another possible approach is to look at how people describe their experiences and decide whether that sounds like something you would like to pursue. 

Thank you all for kindly posting. It is much appreciated.

The post was related to Daniel saying that Arhats can still feel several emotions and so on from the list in MCTB. It was a controversial topic when the book came out.

I am one who deals with very severe tension and anger frequently. Through practice this has disappeared somewhat, and being close friends with anger and tension for so long, you study it from every angle. Mainly, it's just nice to feel something more calm or peaceful then that which practice of late has provided. 

If anger is consistently seen and interfere with ones clear seeing, then it.perhaps may be best to look more closely at this anger. Anyway.

The Arhat is quite controversial along with the removal of emotions and getting to that state. But aside from that, the day is sunny, butterflies are kind, and I think we or I guess I can continue to learn and find more peace.

Ajahn Chah was Theravada, but I don't think he was a jerk liar. Seemed like a fairly wise guy. I can see how having a lifestyle with less distractions can be beneficial to keep lasting equinimity and not be bothered by the world. It does sound nice. On the other hand though, finding equanimity while in the world may provide a stronger practice. Anyway, on with practice. Your doing great and we all appreciate you.

Hi Martin! You wrote, ” if a person is no longer carried away by anger, for instance, then anger is less likely to arise.” - which is one of the practical benefits of knowing oneself. I see the process like this: Meditation or similar practice prepares ground for calmness etc which make it possible to see the impulse/emotion and then the reaction to it. As reactions are in many ways social, meditation and solitary practice won’t be enough. Interaction with others is needed to relearn (something that broke in) interaction with others. Being ready to see what interaction brings can be enhanced greatly by practice. Practice won’t replace the interaction. Then there are the neurophysiological structures that mostly cannot be changed. Some peoples ears just can’t hold as much pressure while the plane takes off. But hopefully bubblegum or nose spray is available.  

Hi Will. You said: “Mainly, it's just nice to feel something more calm or peaceful than that which practice of late has provided.”
I had a similar point I came across and described it as a flat spot, or a plateau. It felt like the things that had been working were no longer working. I wouldn’t know for sure how to map this in the Theravada maps, but it seems like it indicates readiness for insight practice. This is the point at which I started exploring Jhana in earnest. 
I found it’s useful to not just see the anger but to see who or what sees the anger, and who or what reacts to the anger. Who is labeling it anger? (I’m not saying it is not anger). Anyway, the one, or the thing that is seeing, knowing, labeling, comparing, etc etc, is what we are looking for. That thing that is dissatisfied because reality is not the way it/they want it to be. What is that thing? Is it you? Is it your mind? Your body? What is it exactly? How does the whole system of IT work from input of stimulation through reaction at finer and finer levels of observation. 
Some people say you relax that thing by examining it. Some people say you agitate it and wear it out until it gives up, and some people say you ignore it while being subtly aware of it. Maybe this reflects the range of proclivities based on the range of human individuality. There certainly does seem to be an awful lot of systems that have evolved over the history of humans, with a very wide range of variability in methods and organization, all aiming at the same thing ultimately. 




​​​​​​​

What thing? Is there really a thing at all? Why do we think there's a thing? What process causes a thing to appear to us? 

​​​​​​​

Hey Will,

You brought up Ajahn Chah and I thought it was worth mentioning something here. I'm not an arhat myself but I have listened to many thousands of hours of Dharma talks from Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Maha Bua, and disciples; along with other Thai Forest tradition teachers. I have also grappled quite a bit with what it means to be arhat, attained, stream enterer levels and so on as I find roughly as many explanations of what those things mean as people defining them. It's not something I think about these days as it is just time for me to practice and see what happens; but I will share some thoughts.

Both Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Maha Bua were regarded by many disciples as being Arhats. However, I have heard many anecdotes which indicate that they were both capable of quite a range of emotions arising. What it sounds like is that the relationship they had with those emotions was different than a mundane relationship of attachment.

I will point you directly to this talk here:
Living with Luang Ta Maha Boowa (Vintage 2007 Talk) | Ajahn Dick Silaratano (look this up on youtube). 

Late into the talk (not exactly sure but probably 40ish minutes in), Ajahn Silaratano and Ajahn Pasanno remark on how both Ajahn Maha Bua and Ajahn Chah would not infrequently "unleash a torrent of abuse" and basically tear people a new asshole verbally. On that evidence alone, we might conclude the definition of arhat where such emotions no longer arise is wrong, or these two were not arhats. I remain ambivalent on that as it is second hand and anecdotal. But what was also said by both Pasanno and Silaratano is that something seemed different. In the case of Maha Bua, who was known for somewhat regularly having outbursts of anger, Silaratano noted that it always felt like it came from a place of metta (loving kindness) and was seen as something done in order ultimately to help people. I think this is muddy water but I absolutely agree that sometimes you need to be told in a very direct way in order to hear things; sometimes it is just abuse or a reflection of the teacher's own problems. I was not there and cannot judge whether this was genuinely always done in order to help people or that is just how disciples might frame the teacher's actions.

Another anecdote Pasanno shared was from Ajahn Jayasaro (love that guy, he was my gateway drug into buddhism). One evening, Jayasaro was massaging Chah's foot, and another monk came into his Kuti (hut). Chah "unleashed a torrent of abuse" on this monk, yet Jayasaro could not feel any tension whatsoever in Chah's body, and the mood immediately relaxed after the message... er abuse was delivered. 

I will also note that I heard Ajahn Brahm once mention that Ajahn Chah yelled at him over something that did not even seem like it was done as a teaching tool, but might have been more a reflection of Ajahn Chah having a migraine and acting out a little bit. It is worth noting that he had very severe health issues by the time he was middle aged. I don't remember which talk this was... one of Brahm's talks on anger though.

You can also find a talk online of Ajahn Maha Bua in advanced age, going on a tirade about some village kids leaving their bikes around the monastary. I personally find it funny as shit as he switches moments after into giving a dhamma talk like nothing happened. 

So to summarize that mass of info:
- I don't know what the truth was, as these are all second hand accounts
- None of what I said is meant to disrespect the Ajahns. I might put things bluntly but these are stories I heard directly from disciples. 
- What I generally hear from people is that the relationship to these things, including the half life, the attachment, or the degree to which the conscious space shrinks around these things (something I do have some direct experience and sense of) changes drastically.
- Daniel's opinions that it might not be so simple as fundamental emotions and extincts disappearing for ever, is at this point my main assumption until I can work with my own direct experience here. We saw this happen with Delson Armstrong (you might wish to look into Delson discussing his own journey from the "anger and lust are extinguished permanently" to renouncing his attainments on the guru viking podcast; again not dissing Delson, just sharing a resource). I've now seen so much evidence of it in Thai Forest tradition that it seems very likely that the arahatship means you don't have emotions except bliss anymore idea is probably not accurate.
- I have seen quite extensive evidence that even if you become an arhat, your personality likely doesn't change all that much in a fundamental way. Ajahn Jayasaro described said as such (I don't recall the talk), mentioning that if you were a grumpy person before arhatship, you can end up being a grumpy arhat. I mean this with love (truly), but there's a bunch of people of people on this forum claiming various attainments who mostly write shitposts with the occasional kind and poignant advice (you know who you are). 

Not sure if that answered any questions or just gave you more, but hopefully there was some interesting info there.

Ignorant Belief, maybe? Which in turn creates a trance-like state ... tunnel of sorts ... wormhole branching into a sense of "realness" and "ownership"?

Stuff can unfold two ways, as far as I see it;
1 - getting absorbed into the state of anfolding, attention gets sucked into the wormhole of reactive patterning on and on this to that etc ... 
2 - there is the same stuff unfolding, similar to the above, but without the attention being sucked into the narrow tunnel of the reactive pattern story, stuff is utterly "under the bridge now" but yet seem the same and yet not same at all. 

In 1 there is dragging stuff on and on, like dragging skeletons (clinging to the reactive patterning story). In 2 there is mostly wonder and uncertainty. And yet same-same. Shitting in 1 and 2 still seems very much the same! 

Here is a video in which Maha Bua complains at great length about unruly children and compares allowing children to run around in the temple grounds to letting dogs to shit. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=611CNXNXF5Y

I can't say anything about his attainments, but I can say that I do not aspire to be as he appears in this video. Perhaps he feels fine inside and perhaps whatever he experiences now is an improvement on what he felt before.

In his own words (from his book) he says that he has no anger. Yet, as talks, he uses words that are typical markers of anger. 

"But, I am not angry with anyone. The forceful tone of my re-
marks derives from the power of Dhamma. Dhamma is imperturb-
able. It feels no anger or resentment toward anybody. However,
Dhamma always expresses itself with its full power. The same can
be said for the kilesas: they tend to express themselves forcefully,
with the full power in their possession. The difference is that ex-
pressions of the kilesas’ power causes terrible damage to the world
while expressions of Dhamma’s power are like water cooling the
world’s fires.

Do you think that I spoke in anger? Where does anger come
from? Anger comes from the kilesas. For someone who is com-
pletely free of kilesas, you cannot make him angry, try as you will.
There is simply no anger left in his heart. If even a small amount
of anger remained, he could not be called an Arahant free of
kilesas. For anger, greed, and delusion are all kilesas. Do you un-
derstand? Investigate this matter well and you will see.
The physical body is a conventional reality through and
through. As long as it remains directly associated with the pure
nature of the citta, it is bound to be affected accordingly. This
is only natural. Where am I wrong? Who here claims to be so
superior that they can oppose the Dhamma of the Lord Buddha?
Come forward, let’s hear you boast!
Let’s hear you say: “Ãcariya Mahã Boowa is an extremely stu-
pid monk”. I want to hear from all you clever people. So emerge
from your toilet holes and try boasting about your attainments in
Dhamma. I would really like to see something genuine emerge,
but I see nothing of the kind. Wherever I look, all I see are lazy
people full of greed, anger, and delusion. What kind of superior-
ity is that? Still, they continue to come forward with their ex-
travagant boasts. There is no end to their madness."

If I encountered someone in this state, I would want to help them. But Maha Bua, having described himself as an Arhat, is not looking for help. This is his reality and, for a lot of people around him, this is consistent with being an Arhat. I know other people who describe themselves as Arhats who appear to have a much nicer experience. It doesn't really matter except in so much as we can see that the word Arhat is used to describe various different outcomes. Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." For listeners, when we hear a word, it also means what we choose it to mean. 

 

 Yeah that's exactly the video I was thinking of! 

"What, do they bang a drum to meet here?"

​​​​​​​XD
 

Piggybacking off Chris: in practice, there is nothing that needs locating. 

First, thank you for the great posts.

This is only speculation and what seems to be a craving diversion, but I would imagine an arhat would really just want to practice and not be bothered with the running of monestary. No idea.

I would imagine that anger changes, or becomes more skillful. Instead of taking things personally luang por Maha bua might be speaking more about the monestary and sasanas responsibilities to keep the environment conducive to training monks. He is not thier parent. The kids were probably being overly loud and abnoxious leaving thier bikes everywhere.


There is a saying I'm don't entirely recollect, but it's something like " a fool can have the smoothest voice, and speak very well, but still only be a fool."

Back to practice. Thanks again.

Edit: After posting something always comes up. I think we should keep.in mind not all cultures are the same as well. In Thailand and some other Asian countries it's quite hot. This creates a lot of torpor. Sometimes the teacher speaks loudly or harshly to cut through it.

The idea that we need to be a particular way can be very harmful to our practice. 

IIRC Goenks’s rap includes a story from when he was in mentorship under Sayagyi U Ba Khin at the latter’s meditation center when Sayagyi commenced yelling at a yogi and completely dressing him down … and afterwards - I’m paraphrasing and putting it in  my own terms - he gave the equivalent of wink to Goenka explaining that’s exactly what the yogi needed. Goenka was explaining that U Ba Khin could act with decisive force and drama but that it was a pedagogical tool and issued from compassion. Depending on the individual teacher’s style, channeling ‘angry teacher’ or ‘stern displeased parent’ mode could conceivably be a masterful employment of skillful means, to dress down a student  that might benefit from the treatment. For it to be effective it would have to be done without a wink to the student otherwise wouldn’t pass muster as real anger, wouldn’t be taken seriously, and wouldn’t have impact.

I can easily see a meditation master with a gifted dramatic range using the display of anger as a tool. How would one know if they’re really feeling anger or if it’s a ploy?
​​​​​​​
That said, I'm not trying to rationalize the anger of an enlightened teacher nor making excuses for their behavior.

OTOH, Kenneth Folk has written the following regarding Sayadaw U Pandita:
“There is a common misconception that a high level of contemplative development will necessarily transform a human being into a lovable, likable, caring, infinitely compassionate, and utterly sanitized cartoon saint. Sayadaw U Pandita was living proof that this was not so; he displayed the whole range of emotion. Although he could at times be loving, kind, and supportive, more often he appeared angry, irritated, cutting and sarcastic. In short, he was a mean old man.“

And on the third hand (Folk continues):
​​​​​​​“I wasn’t able to adequately describe the precise phenomenology of those experiences, so to U Pandita I was just being sloppy. He shouted, “You are dull, dreamy, drifty! This is not acceptable!” He would angrily hold forth on the inferiority of western yogis in general and Americans in particular. “You Americans, you think you can do it your way! But here in Burma, there’s only one way, and that is my way!” It would have been funny, had it not been so intimidating. Kneeling on the floor of a monastery in a foreign land, with the legendary Sayadaw U Pandita sitting cross-legged on his throne above me, surrounded by his disciple monks, my Western notions of equality did not apply.
I became obsessed with U Pandita. His presence filled my world. Every waking moment was spent reflecting on our conversations and his criticisms, along with imagined conversations in which I would skillfully refute his attacks. But there was no future in this and I knew it. My two options were to either follow Sayadaw’s instructions, or to leave the retreat. After several weeks of internal turmoil and barely restrained resentment during interviews, my resistance collapsed. In my mind, I bowed to U Pandita and said, “I surrender. You’re the king. What do you want me to do?” U Pandita recognized the change at our very next interview. As soon as I began to do things his way, I saw the kind and supportive side of the man. He smiled. “So now... you look like a yogi!”

If still helpful, a quote from Mae Chee Kaew a 'rediscovered' female arahant:

“Body, mind and essence are all distinct and separate realities. Absolutely everything is known — earth, water, fire and wind; body, feeling, memory, thought and consciousness; sounds, sights, smells, tastes, touches and emotions; anger, greed and delusion — all are known.“I know them all as they exist — in their own natural states.“But no matter how much I am exposed to them, I am unable to detect even an instant when they have any power over my heart. They arise, they cease. They are forever changing. But the presence that knows them never changes for an instant. It is forever unborn and undying.”