Re: Socialization

["antiloop1111" <jasoncorell@...>]

Hi Daniel,

> Recently, there appeared a problem which I keep repeatedly 
> encountering. Whenever I am with a person who gets (for example) 
> angry at something, for whatever reason, I help them calm down and 
> relax. After that, they usually ask me if I think they did okay by 
> getting angry. I tell them that I see anger as a perfectly natural 
> reaction, especially in the situation they were in. 

I would argue that being angry is an *instinctual* reaction and so in 
that sense would be considered "natural", but not necessarily right, 
and certainly not the best reaction.

Anger denotes a lack of wisdom. Wisdom is rooted in understanding. 
Therefore to be angry is to not possess right-understanding. There is 
a saying that goes: "The wiseman understands, and understanding he 
ceases from all bitterness and accusation".

To express anger is to also externalize accusation and blame. So long 
as blame is exteriorized, opportunity for inner growth is missed. In 
any given situation that did not go well, all present share some 
blame, because all had a chance to improve the situation yet it did 
not. Lack of action or interaction is also not an excuse and does not 
remove one from blame.

The next time your friend gets angry and externalizes blame, get them 
to try the following exercise: "Point out your index finger as if you 
were identifying the accused". Then ask your friend, "How many 
fingers are you pointing toward the accused?", and they will 
answer "1". Then suggest to them that chances are they haven't 
thought about the situation deeply enough and so have neglected to 
see their part of the blame. Next, get them to rotate their hand 180 
degrees clockwise (while still pointing out with the index finger), 
and then ask the question with a smile, "So how many fingers are 
pointing back at you?" ;-) (answer is 3).

Anger also denotes a lack of self-control. Anger like compassion, and 
kindness is a human action. Humans always have a choice about the 
actions they perform. The problem is that acting instinctually 
bypasses that opportunity. To be fair, in an argument situation, 
there is often little time to contemplate things deeply, but surely 
it can be done after the fact and next time, you will have the right 
method of behaviour at your disposal when anger is about to over take 
you. At this time, you will also have run out of excuses to react in 
anger again.

FYI, the initiate always seeks to become more human and less 
animalistic, so he finds himself becoming less instinctual and more 
in control of himself, his words and his actions.

> Then, follows the problematic question: "do you think it would have 
> been better not to get angry?"

I should also speak here about *perspective*. Often people get angry 
because someone approached them in an angry fashion, and their 
immediate reaction was to snap back in anger. The person (let's call 
him John) that snapped back in anger failed to see why they should 
actually be thankful to the other (Maria) and react with a smile 
instead of with anger. You see, Maria was really giving John an 
opportunity for John to work on his anger problem. Every human 
interaction is an opportunity for growth and change.

One day I was watching an interview of the Dai Lai Lamma on TV by 
some North American news show. One of the questions that was asked 
was "Who's your greatest spiritual teacher?", to which the Dai Lai 
Lamma answered "Mau" (The 'bad' Chinese leader who ousted him and his 
people out of Tibet). I was shocked at the answer and so was the 
interviewer. "What?! How can he possibly be your greatest spiritual 
teacher after all the negative things he has done to you??". To which 
he began a long answer... "Without Mau, I would not have recognized 
that spirituality does not need a church or monastery or country to 
be practiced in, without Mau, Buddhism would not have spread to the 
Western world as quickly as it has because I would have still been 
quietly in Tibet going about my business, without Mau... etc". 

This is for me one of the keys as to Christ's reason for 
saying, "Love thy enemy"... because they will help you grow the most, 
and so how can you not be thankful and grateful for them? If you 
understand this, how can you act in anger again the next time you are 
confronted with it?!

The reality is that very few of us are immune to acting in anger at 
one time or another to one degree or another. What needs to be 
focused on however, is how we can diminish and transform that anger. 
Ghandi said "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind". The 
same applies to anger and if humans are not careful it can spread 
like wildfire. The only reason the whole world is not angry at each 
other right now is because people like you CHOOSE to not act in anger 
when confronted with it, and so the anger stops spreading.

John (your friend), already recognizes that anger is not right, which 
is why he questioned himself and asked for your opinion as a friend. 
Subconsciously, I'd say he actually values your demeanour. The 
problem is he is unable to understand why anger is not the right type 
of action, and until he understands this, his behaviour will not 
change. Again, without right-understanding anger can not be easily 
dealt with and transformed.

> The same thing usually follows an event when I "should have" gotten 
> angry, but reacted in a completely different way. 

In my opinion anger is not something we should ever choose to do. It 
solves nothing, it gets us stressed out and everyone else around us.

Being angry and expressing it towards other human beings is kind of 
like a psychically dumping your garbage on them. This behaviour is 
not acceptable in the physical sense, and neither should it be 
acceptable in the esoteric sense! Choa Kok Sui (a healing teacher) 
says in one of his books (paraphrase) "It would be nice if humanity 
were to recognize the human right of living in a psychologically 
hygienic society. If this were to happen, being angry would be 
considered rude and unhealthy and no longer acceptable human 
behaviour".

>People find that the standards I've set for myself are unnaturally 
>high, and for some reason, they distance themselves from me because 
>of that.

Their distancing themselves from you has likely more to do with their 
inability to understand your motives and perhaps even a slight 
jealousy (for you being more in control) than your standards being 
too high. Perhaps they aim high in their careers or in sports or 
elsewhere. Should you spite them because of that? Of course not, and 
as a friend you should encourage your friends to be the best they can 
be at whatever it is they choose, and you should be happy for them. 

If they choose to distance themselves from you when you are heading 
in a positive direction, then I would question what parts of them do 
you need in order to keep them as friends? Do not confuse the 
priority of your compassion for them, with your need continue 
growing. You always come first. By choosing to stay at their level of 
understanding, you are doing neither yourself a favour (because you 
are inhibiting your growth) nor them. Because you would be unable to 
help your friends and show them compassion and understanding to the 
same extent. People change, if your friends are unable to keep up, do 
not dismiss them completely, show understanding and compassion, but 
also look out for your emotional and psychological well being and 
make an effort to meet newer and more compatible friends with whom 
you can once more share your life experience without being looked 
down upon.

> As much as social alienation is a price I am willing to pay for 
> Initiation, it's a price I firmly believe should not be on the 
> pricetag!

Nobody said initiation was going to be easy. To me initiation is kind 
of like the Matrix movie. You get to choose between the blue pill 
(ignorance and suffering) and the red pill (given the opportunity to 
learn about truth and the greater reality). Once you've chosen the 
red pill, once you've gained certain amounts of understanding and 
realizations of truth (even if small ones at the beginning), it is 
very hard if not impossible to go back, because to do so is to choose 
to be ignorant, to continue to suffer and to not be honest with 
yourself...and that never feels good.

Now I ask you, which is the bigger price to pay? Infinite cycles of 
reincarnation and suffering, or being less liked by some 'temporary' 
friends but making strides toward enlightenment and freedom?

I will refer to my previous statement about making an effort to meet 
new people more in line with your spiritual endevours. They don't 
even have to be more spiritual, simply, less judgemental and more 
open-minded. But again, there is no need for extremes, you do not 
need to disconnect from these friends...in fact, they may help speed 
up your growth the fastest. Without hurdles, success just doesn't 
taste the same.

> These people are my friends, and are close and dear to me. I can't 
> deceive them by acting out my old negative features, but as I 
> don't, they find it disturbing.. Is there anything I should change 
>in myself, that I oversighted in this whole thing?

Yes, contemplate the situation a lot more, then change/transform 
yourself some more. The beauty of being compassionate is that like 
anger, it spreads like wildfire. It is hard to be angry at a person 
who is smiling with loving kindness. Darkness can not prevail in the 
presence of even the smallest light. Light a single match in the 
darkest of rooms and you will realize this truth.

Take good care Daniel,
antiloop1111