I appreciate this clarification as I have witnessed and been the subject of "righteous anger" within substack. Im realizing that empathetic people are experiencing vicarious trauma from bearing witness to so much suffering in the world that we are constantly exposed to. Without deep practice and right understanding of the Dharma, the trauma is manifesting as anger, fear, depression, loss of hope, and inability to see goodness.
Thank you for the clarity of this piece. It's really helpful as I've been thinking a lot about righteous anger. As you say there's a lot of pressure to affirm 'healthy anger' and rage due to the circumstances we're living through and I can completely understand where this comes from. As someone who questions its use it's easy to be seen as 'spiritually bypassing' yet I think there's more nuance here and you have helped by pointing to it.
"Spiritual bypassing" has become a cliché putdown these days.
That is not the original intent of the term. The term is grounded in a trauma model of psychological development, based on identifying patterns of attachment—insecure, etc. The originator of the term, the late John Welwood wrote:
“When we are spiritually bypassing, we often use the goal of awakening or liberation to rationalize what I call premature transcendence: trying to rise above the raw and messy side of our humanness before we have fully faced and made peace with it.”
Anyone who has properly studied the Dharma under a qualified teacher will not engage in this kind of behavior. They will be aware of their afflictive patterns and never claim levels of realization they have not achieved. The whole point of the Dharma is precisely to face our “raw and messy side,” because until we achieve a measure of genuine realization, we are only raw and messy. That is what it means to be afflicted.
He also mythologizes Asian child-rearing practices:
"In contrast to the indigenous cultures of traditional Asia, modern child-rearing leaves most people suffering from symptoms of insecure attachment: self-hatred, disembodiment, lack of grounding, chronic insecurity and anxiety, overactive minds, lack of basic trust, and a deep sense of inner deficiency. https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/on-spiritual-bypassing-and-relationship/
First of all, his notion is not born out by any evidence. There is no evidence that Asian child rearing practices produce healthier adults.
He is part and parcel of a movement within western Buddhism that assumes everyone needs to be in therapy in order to achieve awakening. People with these views do not think that the Buddha's understanding of the human mind is sufficient.
I have always felt that the notion of "spiritual bypassing" is redundant for people who have actually received dharma teachings in a systematic way. Also, it seems that "spiritual bypassing" is more than included in the advice in traditional teachings about how to avoid faults and obstacles. Thanks for mentioning this.
"Its nature is to destroy and separate." - I have to say that I am no longer able to agree with this view, ever since I attended courses on one method of clinical somatics, even though it is one of the things that probably make me somewhat of a heretic. There anger was put in a much different frame - it is a so called syntropic emotion, which brings order to things, when and if used skillfuly (which is not so easy admittedly and depends on one's emotional maturity). This is in contrast to so called enthropic emotions such as hostility, hatred and rage, which are indeed aimed to destroy and separate (but even these sometimes necessary, for example in abusive relationship they provide energy to break away from it - their power of severing; anger does not sever). In this paradigm, when anger is expressed/used skillfuly, it will not fester inside and change into worse, but instead have a positive effect on our situation. If repeatedly not expressed, it will wreak havoc inside us and eventually change into rage and hatred. This all is of course from relative psychological view. I have no disagreements with ultimate view. This is something I not only think but have reflected on and actually observed in relationships between people and put into limited practice for the past two years and due to that it is impossible for me to go back to what I see now as a too simplistic view - "anger bad".
I gave up Buddhism when I became angry about the sexual abuse being excused in the lineage I was practicing in but I always thought the problem wasn’t the emotion itself, since emotions are just information, but rather one’s relationship to the emotion. But what do I know, I’m just an angry ex-Buddhist ;)
Solid distinction between anger itself and the mirror-like consciousness within it. The part about how we fuel our own anger hit differnt because most ppl treat external triggers as the source. I've seen this play out in meditation practice where someone tries to 'transform' anger instead of just recognizing it clearly and the whole thing collapses.
Yes, denial does not help. But recognition always does. When one recognizes the affliction of anger arising in one’s mind, it is an opportunity to liberate it.
Below the path of seeing, and the strong path of application, the display of afflictions like anger (krodha, dveśa), desire, and so on as awakened activity is basically impossible since at this point, speaking for myself. we are not yet āryas, but still ordinary people (pṛthagjana). This is why it is said in the Kīlaya tantras:
The samaya of liberating with compassion
is not killing or suppressing.
The aggregates are the nature of the vajra.
Consciousness is meditated as the vajra.
In other words, if one wishes to display vajra wrath in an authentic way— manifest “vajra wrath that severs anger,” as the above tantras state—meditate on a wrathful deity like Kīlaya, Vajrabhairava, etc. The purpose of the rite of liberation is to overcome one’s own dualistic vision. We “slay” the enemy by slaying our own notion of self and other.
I think Garchen Rinpoche’s altruistic prayer is very helpful in these times:
All mother sentient beings, limitless as space—especially those
enemies who hate me, obstructers who harm me, and those
who create obstacles on my path to liberation and omniscience
—may they experience happiness; be free from suffering;
and swiftly may they attain precious, unsurpassed, perfectly
complete enlightenment!
🙏
Well said. That anger as true dharma view seems especially prevalent in Substack dharma circles. I'm going to use "I dissent". Very clear.
I appreciate this clarification as I have witnessed and been the subject of "righteous anger" within substack. Im realizing that empathetic people are experiencing vicarious trauma from bearing witness to so much suffering in the world that we are constantly exposed to. Without deep practice and right understanding of the Dharma, the trauma is manifesting as anger, fear, depression, loss of hope, and inability to see goodness.
Thank you for the clarity of this piece. It's really helpful as I've been thinking a lot about righteous anger. As you say there's a lot of pressure to affirm 'healthy anger' and rage due to the circumstances we're living through and I can completely understand where this comes from. As someone who questions its use it's easy to be seen as 'spiritually bypassing' yet I think there's more nuance here and you have helped by pointing to it.
"Spiritual bypassing" has become a cliché putdown these days.
That is not the original intent of the term. The term is grounded in a trauma model of psychological development, based on identifying patterns of attachment—insecure, etc. The originator of the term, the late John Welwood wrote:
“When we are spiritually bypassing, we often use the goal of awakening or liberation to rationalize what I call premature transcendence: trying to rise above the raw and messy side of our humanness before we have fully faced and made peace with it.”
Anyone who has properly studied the Dharma under a qualified teacher will not engage in this kind of behavior. They will be aware of their afflictive patterns and never claim levels of realization they have not achieved. The whole point of the Dharma is precisely to face our “raw and messy side,” because until we achieve a measure of genuine realization, we are only raw and messy. That is what it means to be afflicted.
He also mythologizes Asian child-rearing practices:
"In contrast to the indigenous cultures of traditional Asia, modern child-rearing leaves most people suffering from symptoms of insecure attachment: self-hatred, disembodiment, lack of grounding, chronic insecurity and anxiety, overactive minds, lack of basic trust, and a deep sense of inner deficiency. https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/on-spiritual-bypassing-and-relationship/
First of all, his notion is not born out by any evidence. There is no evidence that Asian child rearing practices produce healthier adults.
He is part and parcel of a movement within western Buddhism that assumes everyone needs to be in therapy in order to achieve awakening. People with these views do not think that the Buddha's understanding of the human mind is sufficient.
I’m a psychotherapist by profession, and I never cottoned to the the designation, “spiritual bypassing.”
It’s some strange attempt at guilt-tripping dharma practitioners.
Do some dharma practioners go through a phase of excess swagger. Yes, I did. But, it’s short lived.
I have always felt that the notion of "spiritual bypassing" is redundant for people who have actually received dharma teachings in a systematic way. Also, it seems that "spiritual bypassing" is more than included in the advice in traditional teachings about how to avoid faults and obstacles. Thanks for mentioning this.
I must admit I sometimes have feelings of “righteous indignation/anger.”
But, I do my best not to act on them in word or deed.
It's hard
YES.
I offer this:
https://substack.com/@martysimon/p-181367500
"Its nature is to destroy and separate." - I have to say that I am no longer able to agree with this view, ever since I attended courses on one method of clinical somatics, even though it is one of the things that probably make me somewhat of a heretic. There anger was put in a much different frame - it is a so called syntropic emotion, which brings order to things, when and if used skillfuly (which is not so easy admittedly and depends on one's emotional maturity). This is in contrast to so called enthropic emotions such as hostility, hatred and rage, which are indeed aimed to destroy and separate (but even these sometimes necessary, for example in abusive relationship they provide energy to break away from it - their power of severing; anger does not sever). In this paradigm, when anger is expressed/used skillfuly, it will not fester inside and change into worse, but instead have a positive effect on our situation. If repeatedly not expressed, it will wreak havoc inside us and eventually change into rage and hatred. This all is of course from relative psychological view. I have no disagreements with ultimate view. This is something I not only think but have reflected on and actually observed in relationships between people and put into limited practice for the past two years and due to that it is impossible for me to go back to what I see now as a too simplistic view - "anger bad".
Your heretical student,
Peter NC
Key word here is “skillfully.” The root of all anger, of any kind, is aversion to something one finds unpleasant.
Yes! And there is no rightious anger–just anger.
Here is an important discussion:
Jane, Here is a different take on anger at world situations we face.
https://substack.com/@martysimon/p-181367500
I gave up Buddhism when I became angry about the sexual abuse being excused in the lineage I was practicing in but I always thought the problem wasn’t the emotion itself, since emotions are just information, but rather one’s relationship to the emotion. But what do I know, I’m just an angry ex-Buddhist ;)
Is this something for which you wish a response?
Solid distinction between anger itself and the mirror-like consciousness within it. The part about how we fuel our own anger hit differnt because most ppl treat external triggers as the source. I've seen this play out in meditation practice where someone tries to 'transform' anger instead of just recognizing it clearly and the whole thing collapses.
So hard to live up to, esp in these times. We are sentient & feel what we feel, denial does not help.
Yes, denial does not help. But recognition always does. When one recognizes the affliction of anger arising in one’s mind, it is an opportunity to liberate it.
Namdrol,
I appreciate the useful words that have been coming from this space.
I am not very wise Rick, but I do my best.
Vajra anger isn’t anger. It is compassion that appears angry, but it isn’t. But ordinary people like myself are not capable of vajra anger.
Below the path of seeing, and the strong path of application, the display of afflictions like anger (krodha, dveśa), desire, and so on as awakened activity is basically impossible since at this point, speaking for myself. we are not yet āryas, but still ordinary people (pṛthagjana). This is why it is said in the Kīlaya tantras:
The samaya of liberating with compassion
is not killing or suppressing.
The aggregates are the nature of the vajra.
Consciousness is meditated as the vajra.
In other words, if one wishes to display vajra wrath in an authentic way— manifest “vajra wrath that severs anger,” as the above tantras state—meditate on a wrathful deity like Kīlaya, Vajrabhairava, etc. The purpose of the rite of liberation is to overcome one’s own dualistic vision. We “slay” the enemy by slaying our own notion of self and other.