A Just Anger?
My "Hell to Pay" post and others related to Covid are a reminder that there is a just anger. It is harder to be just in reference to things that are close to home, like having a family member keel over dead from the clot shots. You can also become an anger junkie or the "just" anger can serve as cover for unresolved personal issues about the Way Things Ought To Be. Giving vent to a negative emotion may seem like an understandable reaction under certain conditions, but the kilesas are so subtle, so refined that they are able to piggy back off a noble sentiment and pollute it. Thoroughly. Or maybe the nobility isn't there at all.
The kilesas are translated as "defilements" for a reason. Humans are never dispassionately angry about injustice. They may be indifferent, but once it is perceived and felt by the heart/mind as something belonging to the ego, dispassion goes out the window. There is an identification between the conventional self and some external act. It explains why legal systems separate the victim of an injustice from the fact finding process that establishes if an injustice was committed and who perpetrated it.
One of the best reasons to limit social media and news consumption is that these serve as drug dens for anger/injustice addicts. I've been especially drawn to the massacre of civilians in Gaza and up until recently, spent way too much time following it. There is something surreal about this taking place after decades of exposure to films and documentaries on 20th century mass killings. The 21st century is shaping up to be a repeat of the 20th.
At the end of it all, I've nothing to show for it besides a diminished outlook. If I had just stuck with, "Oh, there's a genocide taking place in Gaza and my government is providing the financial backing for it" and moved on, I would be informed and still angry. But to pore over the reports, pictures and video – what good does it do? On the samsaric scale, genocides have happened innumerable times. They will go on forever.
Sounds like a rationale for apathy? It seems right to stay informed, but the habit of doomscrolling goes well beyond just being informed. You can become knowledgeable about the causes and course of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, but unless you are in a position to change things or influence people, what is the benefit? Perhaps the study of injustice leads to a renewed urgency in practice. What is so enchanting about samsara that makes me want to come back to it?
It's worth investigating why the Gaza massacre makes one angry. Do I know the people involved? Am I inconvenienced by it? No. Am I wracking up negative karma when strangers in another land slaughter women and children with modern weaponry? No.
So what causes the anger? Is it altruism born of seeing someone else suffer or fear that the same could be done to me if it's not stopped?
If I run into my congressman or senators, I would bring the matter up with them. Or I could write a letter and urge others to do the same. I have already written such a letter but see little point in sending it.
In the context of Buddhism, anger or ill will (Pali dosa) is defined as a defilement. Lust is also a defilement, but if you are married, it's the engine that creates children. In the heaven and hell realms, beings come into existence spontaneously and not through sexual reproduction, but on this plane, lust keeps the cycle of life going.
Likewise, anger is an energy that can be used to protect one's children from harm or safeguard the well-being of the community. The mental state involved in killing however remains decidedly negative and is referred to on the Internet as "taking the karmic hit."
The decision to become a father is made at the moment a man begins having sex with women, although this conflicts with modern Western notions which sees fatherhood as something decided by a woman, who retains legal right to break the First Precept and take the life willingly of another sentient being. A man doesn't really know with absolute certitude his ontological status as a father until the baby is delivered. Sex is thought of now as largely a recreational amusement in line with its portrayal in Huxley's Brave New World.
The point being here that most fathers accept the karmic consequences of fatherhood, such as vigorously defending wives and children against violence if necessary.
Both the creation of the family and its protection assume certain scenarios in which non-ideal actions might be necessary in response to events. It is possible of course that one could abstain from any action which transgresses a precept. If someone invades your home with the clear intent to harm or kill, you could simply not do anything and, from a Buddhist perspective, avoid new negative karma. It's an unlikely scenario though because you would still generate negative mental states associated with the violence committed against you and your loved ones. One would have to be a really cool cucumber not to, but there would be no violation of a precept. This is a really legalistic way of looking at ethical issues, based on formal precepts.
Buddhism's Five Precepts are a basic ground for ethics, but they are not the end. Far from it. The nature of mindfulness practice means that one is continuously aware of mental states, of clinging and aversion, and assessing the moral quality of the actions that stem from them. If you can see the chain of causation in your own actions, even in your body, you can break them if they drift into wrong action. If you can break them, you are well on your way to becoming a Noble One.
If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind,
suffering follows,
As the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling
a cart.
The Pali suttas are written primarily for ordained men and women living in the sangha. It is important when Westerners who are laymen read these texts that they not insert themselves into that audience. Doing so suggests a Christian understanding or maybe a democratic viewpoint.
In this vein, meditation was something that the laity only picked up in the last century. Perhaps it was something done early on before being abandoned, but it doesn't change the fact that formal practice was traditionally seen as the province of the ordained. The laity provided the material support and kept the Five Precepts since their observance would bring one to a better place after death. There was no confusion about the roles of the sangha and its supporters. Indeed, people in the West who meet with other meditators in meatspace or online sometimes talk about their "sangha," which is a loosey-goosey reading of the word. The traditional sangha is comprised of men and women who have renounced to pursue the dhamma for the sake of Nibbana.
In the modern world, we theoretically have more time and more conveniences to make meditation a regular part of our lives. In olden times, people spent every moment scraping together an existence for themselves and their families. Death at an early age was a given. At the turn of the 20th century, the average lifespan in the West was around 46 years for men, 48 for women.
All of this to say that the traditional sangha adheres to a strict discipline that constitutes a "counsel of perfection" with regard to ethics and practice. In the West, in a heavily secular setting, the average dhamma student is a layman faced with obstacles inherent to the sensual life.
It's necessary to keep this distinction in mind since so much of the Pali Canon is ordered to the instruction and progress of renunciants. Therefore, the laity must remain engaged in pursuing a common good that makes the dhamma the focus of life while attending to other duties, like work, family and community.
