Some commentary on Brahmajala Sutta (emotions)

[old3bob]

quoted from:  "Responding to Praise and Blame"  by Vishvapani  Sep 15, 2012  Buddha, Ethics, Featured

(Btw, I'd say this is pretty universal for all ways, not just Buddhism)  

"...As anyone involved in teaching Buddhism in the West will know, the Buddhist view that anger should not be expressed raises understandable concerns among people encountering it for the first time. “Does that mean I must repress my experience? I’ve been a doormat all my life and I need to be assertive and express what I am feeling!” The answer is in the reason the Buddha gives for not getting defensive: ‘That would only be a hindrance to you.’ In other words, the emotional hooks that join us to emotions like anger also fasten us to painful and reactive ways of thinking and, in the end, these hurt us (to say nothing of the people with whom we are angry). Another version of the problem of denial affects more experienced practitioners, who can use this teaching to avoid saying difficult things. We may even hide our emotional responses from ourselves beneath a blanket of meditative calm so that we can preserve a sense of ourselves as ‘good Buddhists’.

In fact, the Buddha’s stress is on being honest and truthful, and presumably this can include honesty about our feelings. But there is a world of difference between telling someone that you are feeling upset, and bawling them out! The Buddha is not saying that we should be entirely passive, and simply accept whatever is thrown at us. He suggests that that the monks should indeed respond to criticism, and he cites a case where the criticism is incorrect, saying that we should calmly offer a true account. To be fair, I think this needs to be supplemented by saying that when we believe a criticism to be true we should accept it and admit our faults. So there is a case for debate and disagreement among Buddhists and between Buddhists and followers of other beliefs, but the key is how you go about it. As one western Buddhist teacher puts it: ‘Better honest collision rather than dishonest collusion,’ but reasonable discussion is better than either..."

This also brings to mind for me an extreme example, namely that Jesus did not go crazy when Judas betrayed him; with deep betrayal being about the hardest thing a human being can deal with and hopefully come out the other side in one piece without lasting damage. 

Edited March 16 by old3bob