SHORTY: When to criticize.

 “If someone points out your faults, regard that person as someone who’s pointed out treasure.”

If the person can see the criticism I want to say as treasure, then I can say it.

If not, I need to keep quiet.

I really, really, really need to learn to keep quiet. And part of this is pattern-interrupting, with the question, will they regard this as treasure?

(Mostly, the answer is no. Even if I wish it otherwise, that won't make them see it as treasure.)

Anger can be skillful

Anger gets a bad rap, for good reason, in Buddhism. Anger has a lot of energy, aimed at destruction. If not used carefully, it can destroy your mind.

bell hooks and Thich Nhat Hanh touch on this. bell hooks describes it in a NYT interview:

“I am so angry!” And he, of course, Mr. Calm himself, Mr. Peace, said, “Well, you know, hold on to your anger, and use it as compost for your garden.” And I thought, “Yes, yes, I can do that!” I tell that story to people all the time. I was telling him about the struggles I was having with my male partner at the time and he said, “It is O.K. to say I want to kill you, but then you need to step back from that, and remember what brought you to this person in the first place.” And I think that if we think of anger as compost, we think of it as energy that can be recycled in the direction of our good. It is an empowering force. If we don’t think about it that way, it becomes a debilitating and destructive force.

So, compost anger and make something beautiful. bell hooks might say channel it into constructive, militant love.

Gil Fronsdal, in an audio recording I recall (but can't find) says that Anger might be helpful about 5% of the time. But that it's mostly unhelpful.

My reading of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings and the Pali Canon suggest that anger (or at least clinging to it) does have to be given up to reach enlightenment. It's part of the big 3 of GAD: greed, anger, and delusion.

But before you reach enlightenment, use anger skillfully, when it's helpful. That is, avoid using it destructively or debilitatingly. Destroy only your bad habits! Not other people, or your ability to have compassion for everyone.

And "Don't believe everything you think is helpful" is actually helpful. I'm working on that last one a lot.

SHORTY: That's when you're really safe...

 You can prepare. You can get the mind ready for times when there’ll be aging, illness, and death. And yet you don’t have to suffer from them because you’ve learned how to separate the concern for pleasure and pain, and the pleasure and pains themselves, from your awareness. You let these aspects of the present separate themselves into three separate things. That way, the pleasures and pains, and your concerns about pleasures and pains, don’t have to weigh the mind down. They’re there, but they’re not having an impact on the mind. That’s when you’re really safe.

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu

I write a lot about safety, too.

SHORTY: Don't be overcome with passion...

Don't embrace all passions, especially those that consume you. 

develop the brahmaviharas—and particularly equanimity, along with the ability not to be overcome by pain and not to be overcome by pleasure.

Link: Meditations9

You did something stupid and harmful-- something you regret... now what?

Suppose you did something stupid and harmful. You regret it. What does Buddhism tell you to do?

More importantly, what doesn't it tell you to do? It doesn't tell you to feel guilty. (In fact, I heard that the Thai language doesn't have a word for the word guilt (culpa in Spanish), but never confirmed this myself.)

Instead

• Don't overly feel remorse.
• Don't do it again. (link1, link2)
• Develop the Brahmaviharas (!!??!!?)

That last one seems out of place. Brahmaviharas? What does equanimity, goodwill/kindness, and compassion have to do with the mistake?

Well, it has to do with the root causes of the stupid, harmful thing you did. If I had the brahmaviharas, I probably wouldn't:

• Do intentionally mean things.
• Act rashly, without thinking about the consequences to others.
• Act rashly, without thinking about the consequences to yourself.

---

Some stupid things I do unintentionally. Like, suppose I get into a car accident because of a tire blowout. Well, in that case, the brahmaviharas wouldn't have helped. Maybe I had old tires. I can just make a note to be more careful with my tires.

Most stupid things have some connection to my intention or inattention. There are obvious cases, like yelling at someone. By yelling, part of me intended to make them feel bad. The brahmaviharas are an antidote to that anger/aversion/animosity. 

Then there are subtle cases. Like, suppose I get into a car accident because I was distracted by my phone. I didn't mean to get into a car accident. But if I really develop the brahmaviharas, I see much more deeply and develop more care in my actions. I hold myself to a higher bar of harmlessness. When I drive, I don't just think, "I got to get places quickly". I realize the unintended consequences, things I rush past often, blindspots: "A car can kill people if I'm not careful." If I think this way, which is a natural offshoot of the brahmaviharas, I won't make an excuse about texting on my phone while driving. But, instead, if "I got to get places quickly" is the only thing I can see (a consequence of very little brahmaviharas), I will make excuses about texting, and I'll keep doing it. When something does go bad, I can always say "I didn't intend to hurt people" (true), and "I didn't expect this to happen" (true). But, I probably won't think, "I could have prevented this" afterward (true, but not thought). And I might even think, "I couldn't have expected this to happen" (false, but comforting). Notice the small difference between "didn't expect" (true) and "couldn't have" (false).

---

As a small aside to police shootings and misconduct, there is an unfortunate byproduct of our legal system around the idea of negligence. If a cop shoots an innocent person, they can plead, "I didn't expect this to happen", which takes murder off the table. But to get out of involuntary manslaughter, they have to claim, "I couldn't have expected this to happen." That it, there was no negligence. So, the processes of cognitive dissonance nudges them (or is it forces them?) to side with the false but comforting notion that they have no fault.

I wish there were a legal process where they could be honest and say, "I didn't expect this, but I could have expected this" without going to jail. Building on the Truth and Reconciliation movements of South Africa, I think it'd be instructive to have a way to plea to it, not serve jail time, but to work ardently to preventing it from happening again. That way, you use the avoidance of jailtime to get them on the side of fixing the problem. Instead our system aligns avoiding jailtime with denying the problem exists. Making the way forward something very split.

It'd be really interesting to see how many people would take that option: Serving 5-10 years in advocacy to make sure it doesn't happen again, rather than lying and a 50-50 chance of 5-10 years in prison.

Notes: Our 5th amendment (no self-incrimination) means that they don't have to self-testify the truth. And, furthermore, only they know in their heart of hearts if it's true that "I couldn't have expected this". So how can we really prove they could have expected it. But we do litigate it, by showing people's facebook posts or other things to try to point out a bias to suggest it *was* they could have expected it and did.

The full quote:

"The Buddha recommends that, if you want not to suffer from the results of past bad actions or past unskillful actions, you develop the brahmaviharas—and particularly equanimity, along with the ability not to be overcome by pain and not to be overcome by pleasure." from Remorse by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.