Fundamental question: did buddha ever get angry after his enlightenment ?

The impression I get from reading about buddha is that here is someone who is, basically, perfectly free of emotion.
Looking at buddhist forums I see people who do and people who don't believe he was totally free of anger.

On the other hand, many buddhist teachers say they either get angry, have a different relationship to anger, or even that anger is healthy and necessary. But none of them are free of it.

So is there a big disjunct between what the founder and the followers say and do. Or is that an unrealistic view of the historical buddha leading to unrealistic expectations from practice and teachers ?

So did he get mad ?

This one is easy to answer. Yes. It is an unrealistic view.

Hi Chris thanks for your reply. I know this gets tricky because awakened people often say things like "I" don't get angry, but "there is anger", or "anger arises", so the goalposts shift from the emotion to the nature of the self.

Is that what Buddha said ?
Where do I find his words that say he experienced anger in any way post-enlightenment ?

I tend to think it more realistic that anger can arise, and is actually felt much more clearly (as a sensation), but then passes through the system incredibly quickly - without the person going home to stew about it all evening etc

But then I don't know how far this path can go.....

It's what folk say isn't it Robin ? But I've always seen buddha as being totally free. I'm poorly read in buddhist literature (bit of a hang up on a buddhist forum) and maybe have a mythical view of him. If I get down to the library and read the sutras am I going to find evidence of his pissedness in his own words ?

I doubt you can find any of the Buddha getting angry even if he actually did. Who could possibly prove someone like the below ever existed? I think it is possible to reach such a stage but it belongs in the training of Morality (many fetters/arhat-type arguments abound) and perhaps there is no perfection but close. Whether it is real or not, isn't going to stop people from trying (I am; somehow very far from it), failing or thinking they have perfected it. Aiming/striving high has its pros though, no?

I've always thought that Daniel's view was MUCH more likely, i.e. that emotional perfection wasn't possible, and then all of the mythology accreted around the Buddha's legend to suggest that it was. 

But then this is what people who Jefferey Martin places at 'locations' 3 and 4 report....

Having it pass through your system in seconds though - literally like water off a duck's back - (at what I think is Jefferey Martin's location 2) is an amazing feeling though..

Emotional perfection is possible.  You dont become perfect, you just stop taking your own emotions seriously, personally.   You see them for what they are.  

In my own case, I havent gotten angry in a sustained way for a long time.  I just see through it quickly.  I do still react with anger occasionally - usually only to my wife! If some guy punched me on the street - it would trigger an emotional response, but the mind would catch that response pretty rapidly.   If something really horrible happened, I imagine it would take longer to process, but not very long.  

If you take the view that people are just Dolphins with thumbs, then how can you stay sanely mad at a Dolphin. 

I did a bit of a google, and people come up with stories about the buddha that show anger, but the next question would be about authenticity. There are interpersonal and political reasons that would make someone promote pacivity in others, it's a way to maintain control over someone else - get them to turn the other cheek.
But I don't know anything about the reliability of buddhist scripture and hagiography, although I find it a credible story of the contemplative life and it's fruits.

The reason I got onto this today is that I just started watching a video by Tara Brach and she goes straight into saying that anger is "absolutely essential for our survival and our flourishing, that it's an intelligent emotion.." But in buddhism I thought anger is seen as a defilement or mental pollution.

Anger is just always irrational.  Who are you blaming for what? 

Well, the model laid out for me by many buddhist teachers is that there is room for the irrationality of anger (if it's irrational). Moreover in buddhism rationality is often held to be an impediment to truth, wisdom and love. I don't need to get into a counselling sesh here, though I appreciate your concern.

Thing is, if buddha had transcended or completely overcome anger, as his story seems to say, then so many of the teachers that I see online have not matched the founder's level of wisdom or skill. In that case, where are the living teachers who are as free as the original ?

I think I'll have to have a preoper read of buddhist lit. cheers.

I'm not, by any means , very well-read on buddhism(despite being born into it ) but viewing anger as 'bad' or 'unnatural' is another form of attachment to view. Anger can be destructive, but used correctly I believe it is a useful tool to set boundaries and push back against injustice.

Take this story for instance:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.htmlLater on, the Buddha expounds on why his words aren't words of anger, but it's pretty clear that he is setting the Brahman straight. Anger is volatile and is quite destructive, but without it I doubt people would go out of their way to correct the ills in the world.

There's even wrathful deities in Tibetan Buddhism that are all about skillfull use of anger and other 'negative' qualities.

Yeah I was reading that, there's a bit of stuff about anger on the access to insight webite isn't there ?
You seem to be saying that's anger and not anger at the same time. Or that you don't think the buddha's attitude in the above segment is really useful. I don't think setting someone straight is anger. In a way the buddha story is a lucky one compared to the christian one, in that his passivity and declarations of wisdom and divinity don't lead to persecution or crucifixion. Is he ever threatened in the story of his life ? Maybe that's a perk of coming from a respected family, or having a local tradition of supported philosophers.

I think his attitude in that sutta is very useful, he calmly explains what he dislikes about the Brahman's attitude to him. It's a useful manifestiation of his anger and achieves results. Obviously, if he started smacking the Brahman around then that would be an unskillfull use of anger that gets him nowhere. I don't think there's anything wrong with anger, as long it isn't manifested in an non-useful way.

However, the translator of the passage most likely disagrees with me(considering this footnote at the end):In my opinion, the Buddha definitely felt anger but decided to just establish boundaries and clearly signal that he does not like being treated this way.

In my view, anger isnt a supernatural being that invades the mind.  It is just a biochemical reaction in response to stimuli.  Take steriods and it happens easier, take ecstasy and it is hard to get mad.  When anger arises in the nervous system, a delusional person says - "I am ANGRY!" then feels shame or something about that.  An awake person says "Anger has arisen! The sky is Blue!" . It isnt about being a good person because you dont get angry or a bad person because you do.  It is about being centered and rational and seeing that it is nonsense just like everything else. 

I prefer to pay attention to what people do - how they behave - as opposed to what they describe their internal narrative to be. It's cleaner and there's no guesswork involved. When anger is exhibited anger is present and affects people within the relevant sphere of influence. Emotions are an integral part of human existence and are thus, IMHO, inescapable. We can talk about how practice changes one's internal narrative, of course, but those changes should ultimately to show up as behavioral changes.

Who are we to judge?  I try to just see everyone as trying the best they can given the conditions and their history/biology. 

Good points, but my concern is with expectations of following the path, the parameters of human possibility, and for buddhists those are fundamentally based around the Buddha's experience.

If he overcame anger in a profound and permanent way, and his followers can't, then there's something wrong somewhere - either with the historical story or with the followers.

Or, if he couldn't overcome anger but always held it to be a poison, and his followers think anger can be beneficial, then the followers have to explain why he is wrong.

But yeah I need to do a little scholarship I guess.

I know that's your concern but there's simply no way to know. The Buddha lived 2,500 years ago and everything we know about that person comes from an oral tradition. I think it's better, just in terms of what's actually possible to accomplish, to measure your expectations against the people in this time that you can actually interact with, ask opinions of, or get suggestions from.

There have been some people who have, in the recent past, claimed to have eliminated their emotions (anger, for exmple) only to walk that back after some period of time. I think the goal of elminating anger is just not worth the time because it's not possible. What is possible is what multiple people on this thread have suggested - you can change the way you experience anger internally and thus chnage the way it gets expressed externally.

Who said anything about judging?

I really dont feel anger or bear ill will towards anyone.  If anger arises, rarely, I see it for a triggered reaction and recover equanimity after a bit. I dont see this as a big spiritual accomplishment, I just have been watching my mind for so long it has trained itself to do it and I know rationally that anger is stupid. 

There is no way the Buddha felt anger in the way you are thinking.  He didnt believe in a seperate self! at all.  He just saw perfection.

Once on retreat a loud banging started happening outside the meditation hall.  I got really angry that they would do construction on the one week i had to go on retreat.  A whole storm of emotion arose.  I went over to the window out of annoyance and it was a beautiful woodpecker.  The whole thing changed for me - now the noise was natural and lovely and receded from my mind.   So I saw that 1.  It isnt the stimuli itself that causes anger, it is the story I tell myself around that stimuli.  2.  I had one attitude towards nature and another towards humans and human activity.  I see the natural universe as perfect and awesome and I can recongize love in all of its creatures. I saw humans as all kinds of bad.  But humans are just a part of nature, so I was making a choice to see them differently.  An irrational choice. 

Don't you think this is nonsense? 

That is all there is to it. Buddhist or Buddha or Dolphin or Human or Awakened or Not. Even if you want to insult back, more powerful ones can be hurled when you have calmed down from irrationality. And have the rationality to think maybe hurling that most powerful insult will ultimately come back and bite you in the ass. <- skillful.

I agree anger is useful, for feeling stupid after.

Thanks Chris. I think that this is difficult to judge because even the number of people who live in an awakened way but experience emotions like anger is pretty small, and in that there seems to be a subset of people who say that their emotions are gone, and I do know of a couple who claim this, but nobody has tested them... except maybe Jeff Martin.

I'm surprised that, if the buddha shows no sign of being subject to anger, that this is not taken at face value. I suppose this is a pragmatic view - testing ancient scripture against what seems possible in contemporary life, which is very sensible. But it's not in itself proof that Buddha was lying or mistranslated over the ages, all it is is proof of the state of people we know.

Are we to assume that the scriptures with the buddhas angry outbursts got lost along the way ? Why would that happen ? And what else has been lost along the way ?

And even if it turns out to be impossible to be totally free, at what point is anger seen as a defilement, and at what point as Tara Brach says, as a benefit ?
If buddha thought in the same way as someone like Brach, is there any reliable scripture that says so ?

So there's a big variance in what various teachers are saying about anger. Eckart Tolle for instance holds it to be a product of fear and powerlessness. Is there any other reason for anger ? If this is the case, then we have to assume that awakened people are subject to fear and powerlessness, even though they live in profound harmony with life and have supposedly overcome the illusion of death of a separate self. Wasn't overcoming death one of Buddha's main drives in his story ?

I know for some teachers, getting to a point of selflessness, and getting that sort of mindful attitude to anger is an important preliminary to a deeper stage of being completely free of emotions. At least they say, so it becomes a matter of what we believe about others, what we believe is possible.

Expecting others to be free of anger is difficult, though, because it's like expecting others to be fearless and powerless all the time - so how do you do that ? I thought that a spiritual life was meant to do that, to cut through the fight and flight mechanism by showing the animal part of us that we are part of a greater whole, that death is an illusion, that we are one with our threatening environment, that there is nothing to fear.

If that's not so then the only way to be free of fear is to physically be safe, the rat race struggle to be secure and well fed, or never take chances. And if you want others to be free then ensure they are secure and well fed and not subject to risk. Which means law, money, physical power of threat, and generally a lot of clinging and atttachment.

Aristotle's opinion on anger was that it can be useful during fight.

Seneca and other stoic philosophers thought otherwise: Anger is morally unacceptable under all conditions. (De Ira)

For me the presence of anger in any of its forms is the foremost and clear indication that the level of the spiritual development of this person is nil. (The only excuse is mental ilness.) 

I found that the more I meditate the less propensity to anger I have. 

I don't believe in a separate (permanent) self, either. I can experience anger arising none-the-less. I may not process it the way I used to, but it's still arising. My experience is that it's a natural part of my human anatomy, physiology, chemistry, sense operations, brain processing (neurology?) and mind. It's driven, like all objects, by the process of dependent origination - it's derived from experence and eveything that preceeds and surrounds it within that experience. I can't actually stop it from arising. I can, however, process it differently and not react - I can objectively see it arising and interrupt the habitual reactive processes.

BTW - this same thing applies to all objects, including my conpception of the self as a separate, permanent entity.

Is that what you meant? 

Did the Buddha overcome death? Do tell!  

I'm teasing, of course, but I think a better way to say what he did is that he ovecame the fear of death.

Yes, there's a huge variance in what teachers, authors and others say about anger and other emotions.  My way of dealing with that was to practice my way through the conundrum so that I could draw my own conclusions. Talking our way through this stuff, sans experience, tends to be a dead end because our conclusions are then drawn not from personal experience but from what other people say. That leaves us guessing about who's right, who's wrong, who's more or less awakened, and so on.

I'd love to have a dollar for every time this subject has arisen on DhO, KFD, Awakenetwork, and other venues online  

Fully eliminating all our emotions is complete nonsense, IMHO. As I said in an earlier post, those here and elsehwhere who have claimed to have done that in the past have since recanted. But... if you do believe this is possible then you should try to do it! 

Yes.  I am working to release muscle tension.  I find that muscle tension is the same as a subconscious "concern network" and that when anger arises it essentially is an automatic process triggered by stimuli and some narrative I am still subconsciously holding onto.  As I am getting into deeper and deeper states of relaxation, fewer and fewer things trigger angry responses.  

I do not believe that many "angry" responses would be triggered in a buddha with zero muscle tension and constant access to a nirvana view of reality.  If one did arise, she would know what it was and let it pass. 

Thanks for engaging - It really helps me to discuss this stuff openly.  

First, I do not think science is anything but another metaphor for our experience of reality.  I do not think it is truer than anything else.  I have just found that if I stick to one and only one model of reality, then my mind can become more relaxed and confident.  I have the "choice' of any non falsifiable model and I have chosen scientific reality because that is what I believe in most and because every thing i come in contact with reifies it for me.  It works because this is all absolute horse shit.  Nothing is happening.  That is what science teaches as well, so I can sit and be perfectly at peace in this scientific reality while still being sane when I engage with others.  There is no good reason to do that, but it is what i seem to be trying to do. 

What i meant by nonsense was the whole idea that there is some kind of progression or saving or divine intervention or anything.  We are just squirrels.  No one gives a damn about our lives or souls or stories.  Yet - Love is still here. 

Are you speaking from personal experience here or are you opertaing on the basis of someone else's word? It's not necessarily wrong to take someone else's word for what is possible but you need to admit to pushing a belief because that's what you're doing. Again, I heartily believe that if you truly think the total elimination of emotions is possible then strive as much as you can to achieve that goal. I've never met a human being who claimed this accomplishment over an extended period of time who didn't subsequently recant. This includes  a lot of people I consider to be highly awakened. I know... I keep repeating this. But it's quite telling, IMHO.

Also - can you describe pure consciousness for us?

Grabbing a piece from another thread

"Location 4 and Beyond
Another major transition occurred at Location 4, which includes both the transitional
location and those beyond it where the experience it ushers in continues to deepen. All remaining
vestiges of self-related thoughts are gone by this point, as are experiences of emotion. Feelings
of deep interconnectedness and union with God, an all pervasive consciousness, and so forth also
disappeared. These participants reported having no sense of agency or any ability to make a
decision. It felt as if life was simply unfolding and they were watching the process happen.
Severe memory deficits were common in these participants, including the inability to recall
scheduled events that were not regular and ongoing. Participants who progressed to this location
from one or more previous ones reported the highest level of well-being. Often this amazed them
as they did not imagine anything could have been better than Location 3. "

This is where Bernadette Roberts said she was, and where she said buddhism picked up where christianity left off.

If Bernadette Roberts said that buddism was the place for location 4 (and beyond), then can we assume that's where Gautama was ?

Barry Long also claimed to be free of emotion, I'm sure there are others.

Testing what other people say about themselves is how Buddhism got started, otherwise he would have been
sitting under his tree on his own all his life.

But, yeah, how do you test them ? Creep up behind them, shout BOO!, and see if you get an earful of anger ?

If Buddha said anger was a fetter that he overcame, and buddhist teachers say it isn't,
I can indeed see an income stream for you....

Poking them (the ones who are alive) repeatedly with sharp sticks would be faster and probably more effective  

I'd say doing a specific set of practices to attain what someone else purportedly achieved, and taught, is how Buddhism got started. Maybe that's what you meant, however.

Is that from Jeffery Martin?

Question - where would you put Jeffery Martin's original star subject and reference model Gary Weber on the spectrum of awakening?

Do you think fetters are real things that must be overcome or things we imagine to be real that can be just seen through? 

This might seem a bit off-topic, but, seeing as you practise Mahamudra, do you have a teacher?

I've always been pretty interested in Dzogchen/Mahamudra stuff but a having a guru is always stressed as a preliminary, so I tend to just stick to garden-variety breath meditation.

Can you clarify? I can't reconcile these two statements you made in the same post. You either have the attainments and can thus speak from personal experience of them - OR - you know the principle only and have to take the word of others who do claim to have the attainments. 

Just my two cents:


I think it is desirable to get rid of obnoxious emotions like anger and cultivate positive emotions like joy.

My English is not so good to be able to understand what the contemporary buddhist teachers say in their youtube presentations, so here is just what I see

Daniel Ingram: Happy dude
Gary Weber: Suffering and deeply troubled man
John Yates Culadasa: Good old man from some fairy tale
Thai Forest Tradition: Vintage photographies of prisoners in concentration camps with desperate faces
Leigh Brasington: Wise father I would like to have
Shinzen Young: John Malkovich

;)

Sure - what I'm taking away from your last post is that you have feeings and emotions.

Thanks.

I love this!

I Just spat water all over my laptop! Laugh/Cry EMOJE!!

Hey! That closely resembles a round about way of saying you're better'n the rest of us  

Generate Operate Destroy, I think that you are a bit inconsistent since in one of your previous posts you rebuked me because I have sex with my wife. And now you confess that you have sex as well.

Next you tell us about your "absolutely fucking humongous and praiseworthy dick". In my opinion it is rather childish since the average human penis length is most likely 13.12+-1.66 cm. (And women on average prefer most likely the length of 16-16.3cm.)

Further, you tell us that you don't exist. Would you say the same next time you have trapped wind? ;)

He's gonna tell you he's using his Crazy Wisdom.

So, buddha, free of anger ?

Generate Operate Destroy, I am sorry to disappoint you again: Currently I am taking: Escitalopram (side effect: erectile dysfunction, anorgasmia, partial or total anihilation of libido), amisulpride (side effect: erectile dysfunction, partial or total anihilation of libido), clonazepam (side effect: partial or total anihilation of libido), and two antihypertensive agents (side effect: erectile dysfunction, partial or total anihilation of libido). 

So, on the contrary, I am happy that at least from time to time I "spill the seed". Since you are probably interested in these issues I also mention that if I don't "spill the seed" at all, I have various inflammations of the urinary tract, painful urinating etc.

Chris Marti:

I have just seen Kenneth Folk on youtube. I would say: A Greek philosopher. And Sam Harris is easy: Ben Stiller ;D

There is an answer to this via practice. One does not have to be a buddhist nor proclaim to be a follower of Sid the Buddha to find out. Everyone (lives/is/eats/shits/add your favourite word) the Dharma, like/believe it or not. 
I found that with practice, the insight that expectations stand out like a sore thumb as a major cause of suffering, is an important one.

I wish you Godspeed on your quest, however unlike the answer/s that can be found with practice, this looks like a quest with no destinations. Are you writing a book or preparing for a debate?

There are some interesting suttas where the Buddha calls some people a fool on their face. Also, the sutta where a princess and her parents come to the Buddha to ask him for marriage, the Buddha basically says that the princess is a pile of s*** compared to Mara's daughters who tried to seduce him before his enlightenement. That sounds a bit agressive. But, maybe he was just being matter of fact and said it with a loving but stern tone of a parent.

Hi Angra,

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I may be mistaken she was a princess. But, I somewhat remember after she was "supposedly" insulted she became the Buddha's enemy. However, her parents who were more sensible became Stream Enterers I think.

Unfortunately, Google is horrible for searching suttas. I might try to search it after work.

Metta
Mettafore

The human mind just doesnt work that way.  If you make it out the other side - a la the Buddha - the world doesnt appear to you like a bunch of seperate characters to be judged and reacted to in order to achieve your goals.  It looks like the Crab Nebula of Love, just kind of happening.  However the Buddha's nervous system reacted to stimuli, his mind understood it was empty.