Transcription
Let's continue with our theme now for a little bit. As I said this morning, there's way too much to go into on a day, so we'll just see what we get to and explore a few different angles and things, and there will be opportunity for discussion and comment and question later. As I said, what I'm really interested in is the possibility for us as human beings to learn to work skilfully with anger, which is going to be so destructive as a force in our lives, whether it's very strong, or even the more subtle versions can be so destructive. And the possibility is there for us to learn to work well with it, in a way that's very healing and very helpful for us.
So I mentioned one this morning, and the mindfulness. And that's so, so valuable, you know, so incredibly valuable, to be able to actually turn towards the experience of anger and look at it, instead of in a way that fans the flames of anger, in a way that's actually helpful, that brings some clarity, that brings some resolution. So that's a real skill, and there's the possibility for us to learn to do that. And as I said, it's priceless to know how to do that, to develop the ability to do that in life. One of the really, really valuable things that we can know as human beings.
And I said, you know, I threw that out, only spent maybe two or three minutes explaining that this morning, and please do ask if it wasn't clear. That was just the rudiments. I'll throw one more thing out, which is really this, and it's about mindfulness in general: mindfulness is in the service of ending suffering. When we're being mindful of something, especially something difficult, I would say that one portion of the mindfulness, if you like, if we say it like that, one portion needs to be noticing whether our attention is helpful or not. In other words, what is the effect of my mindfulness right now? Because we say "mindfulness." It's a nice -- it's one word, but actually it's got a lot of different colours and aspects. And when I'm paying attention to something difficult, there should be a feeling. If I've found the right kind of mindfulness in that moment, there should be a feeling that either the problem is kind of ebbing away, or there's a sense of some ease coming in around the difficulty. Do you understand?
Is that a no? [laughter]
Yogi: Yeah.
Rob: Yes? Okay. So it's just, it's more like there's a kind of -- what would you call it? -- a monitoring aspect to the mindfulness, because very easily, something else can come in. We think we're being mindful. There's something coming in that's actually ... [blows air three times] fanning the flames, fanning the coals of the anger. And we're just not aware of it. So we need to, a little bit, play with the quality of mindfulness. And just watch out. Is it helping? Is it not? Maybe we'll come back to this. As a general rule, it's the important thing.
But let's move on. Maybe we can come back to that if we need to at the end. So there's plain and simple mindfulness -- very important. There's the idea that the Buddha puts out of learning not to (what he calls) brood on the anger. So listen to this. It's from the Dhammapada. If you don't know the Dhammapada, it's a beautiful collection of verses, of sort of pithy sayings of the Buddha, really quite easy to read and very lovely, very poetic. So he says:
"He insulted me. He hit me. He beat me. He robbed me." For those who brood on this, hostility [or hatred or anger] is not stilled.
"He insulted me ... hit me ... beat me ... robbed me." For those who don't brood on this, hostility is stilled.[1]
And then this very, very famous verse:
Hatred never ceases through hatred. Hatred only ceases through non-hatred [and love]. This is an ancient [and eternal] truth.[2]
Such powerful words, beautiful words. So when there is anger -- and it can be all kinds of scales, or something's happened between you and someone -- what's helpful there? I'm not going to talk [about mettā]; I'm just going mention it. There's the quality of loving-kindness, of mettā. Does everyone know what that is, or would you be familiar with that? Yeah? Okay, so just the power of that as a practice, to wish well, even when you don't feel like it, and to just kind of, as the Buddha says, to drop the drops in the bucket. And after a while, the bucket is filled.[3] Massively powerful -- not dramatically, necessarily, but over time, massively -- to soften the heart, soften the perception, soften the anger. So I'm just mentioning that. Remember that's a really important tool.
[2:40] But let's pick up something related to that: the quality of empathy. So what often happens when there's anger is that the anger comes in, and it creates a kind of division between self and other, the person that I'm angry at, that we can no longer empathize with them. It's like we can't quite see their point of view. And of course, that's feeding the anger. My inability to see your point of view is stimulating more anger.
There's a story here. Some of you may have heard this. I don't know. Do you remember the Brighton bombing, the IRA bombing, some of you who were alive then? Maybe some of you weren't. But Anthony Berry MP, one of the Tory MPs, was killed in that bombing. It was in 1984. And his daughter's name is Jo. And she felt very, very traumatized by the whole thing, the sudden sort of killing of her father and others. And she describes her process of working with it. And what happened was, one of the guys that was convicted was called Pat Magee. He was a former IRA activist. And he was put into jail. But then he was released with the Good Friday Agreement in 1999.
And they started meeting, actually. They started meeting. This was the murderer of her father, and her. And she was interested in exploring what was possible, and so was he, empathy. This is her talking, kind of describing some of her insights around empathy, and around working with rage and anger. She says:
An inner shift is required to hear the story of the enemy.[4]
So this is a very extreme example, obviously, but this cutting of the empathy is the kind of thing that happens to us every day in much smaller situations.
An inner shift is required to hear the story of the enemy. For me the question is always about whether I can let go of my need to blame, and open my heart enough to hear [Pat's] story and understand his motivations.
That's the key: understand his motivations.
The truth is that sometimes I can and sometimes I can't. It's a journey and it's a choice, which means it's not all sorted and put away in a box.
This is a lot of insight here in what she's saying.
It felt as if a part of me died in that bomb. I was totally out of my depth but somehow I held on to a small hope that something positive would come out of the trauma.
Then she describes going to meet and listening to different people, and then eventually meeting Pat. She talks a little bit about forgiveness, but here's what I want to read. She says:
Now I don't talk about forgiveness. To say "I forgive you" is almost condescending -- it locks you into an 'us and them' scenario keeping me right and you wrong.
It's very rich in insight, what she's saying.
That attitude won't change anything. But I can experience empathy, and in that moment there is no judgement. Sometimes when I've met with [Pat], I've had such a clear understanding of his life that there's nothing to forgive.
I wanted to meet [Pat] to put a face to the enemy, and see him as a real human being. At our first meeting I was terrified, but I wanted to acknowledge the courage it had taken him to meet me. We talked with an extraordinary intensity. I shared a lot about my father, while Patrick told me some of his story.
She says more, but I'll just read this to you:
Perhaps more than anything [I'm beginning to realize] that no matter which side of the conflict you're on, had we all lived each others' lives, we could all have done what the other did.
It's an extraordinary journey of empathy, of really putting oneself into the shoes and into the perspective of the other person, because as I said, when anger comes, that's what gets lost. And then, if I can bring that back, in a way, something gets connected, for a start. Something gets opened -- a possibility of flexibility of view. And something gets softened. All this there.
Empathy, again, it's one of these things we could talk about all day. But if we think about another aspect of empathy, it's just recognizing our common humanity. She mentions that. Just, for instance, the fact that you and I are mortal, that we're going to die, that our time is limited. So I might be furious with you or you with me, or upset or judgmental or whatever, whichever version of aversion it is, and anger. Listen to the Buddha. This is from the next verse of that Dhammapada:
Unlike those who don't realize that we're here on the verge of perishing [in other words, death is around the corner. Death -- we don't even know when it is, but it's soon], those who do: their quarrels are stilled.[5]
Interesting. The more we fully can open to death, contemplate death -- my death and your death, my death and the persons with whom I'm angry, their death -- the more the anger subsides. Something comes in, and it's a commonality of vulnerability, a commonality of humanity. And that makes a big difference. There was a study done. I can't remember where the prison was. I think it was in Texas, where they actually still have the death penalty in the States. And a team of psychologists went in, in this very sort of quite violent prison. And there's a lot of, well, abuse and violence going on between prisoners. And they went into the death row section. And there, they'd heard it was completely unviolent. And they went in, and they were going to try and figure out why it was so unviolent in this part of the prison. And they started talking to the prisoners, and the prisoners knew already. It was simple: "We just know we're going to die. What's the point?" And so they didn't need to do all those studies. [laughs] It was actually quite clear.
Tsongkhapa, he's one of the great Tibetan teachers, I think from the fourteenth century. I can't remember the exact words, but basically, like, if you're falling off a cliff with someone you're angry at, you're not going to be arguing on the way down. [laughter] What's the point? I mean, only James Bond, and people like that ... [laughter] It's silly, you know? It's like something actually more important is going on. So there's a real skill in this kind of death contemplation. It does something to the heart and to the sense of clarity and priorities -- very, very important.
[12:37] So there's mindfulness. There's the awareness. There's the capacity of the heart to come in with the mettā and with the empathy, and looking for ways to support the empathy. And so there's the awareness, and there are the heart qualities. These are all very important. Again, just picking up pieces here. There's also the capacity of the intellect to come in, and the mind. This is actually really quite important to notice, to reflect, and to start questioning. When we find ourselves angry, when we find ourselves enraged and kind of stuck in it (which you may not want to admit), what can I bring in of the intelligence to start contemplating in a way that might soften it and open it out?
And one of those is actually contemplating the consequences of my anger. What are the consequences of this mind state carrying on? And you can see, again, even if we come away from the very extreme versions of rage and that kind of hostility, into more the judgmentalism, the pickiness, the kind of coldness, harshness that we have towards others -- that has an enormous amount of consequences in our relationships. And you can see over time, what can happen is the relationships get eroded, the quality of the intimacy. Or if there has been an anger and a blowout, and we haven't quite patched it up well, we haven't quite gone there to talk about it and heal it properly, that kind of stays as a little bit like a cancer, almost, in the relationship. Something gets eroded in how open and how genuine we can then be with each other. So really just to contemplate the consequences if there is anger. It's like, is this really what I want to be there? Do I know what this is doing to my relationships and in my life? Very important, because it's extremely destructive.
[14:45] The Buddha, interestingly, also in terms of consequences, talks about how it affects a person's appearance.[6] And you can see, when someone really has a lot of anger that they're constantly -- their whole appearance gives off that. It's not attractive to other people. This is what the Buddha says. You might be very good-looking. You might be dressed in whatever -- maybe I've got my Armani suit on and all that. But if I'm angry, it's actually ugly. There's something unattractive in it. Do I want to be putting that out there? No one finds anger attractive.
It's also the fact that when there's anger and it's around a lot, and it's not so conscious, people become uncomfortable in our presence. So again, it's more like, what vibration am I putting out into the world? Am I sending out a signal and a feeling that people have? Maybe they can't even put their finger on it, but they feel comfortable in my presence. They feel easeful. They feel they can trust and let down their guard. Or is it something else I'm putting out? What do I want to put out?
And again, this is all in terms of questioning, questioning the consequences. And sometimes, very natural, very natural, when there's anger, we want revenge. We want to get back at this person. We want them to suffer. But it's interesting to really reflect. Is there really any benefit I would get from this person feeling bad in any way at all? Feeling embarrassed, feeling whatever it is. Or physical ... Getting what seems like, from the perspective of anger, their just deserts: "That's what they deserve for what they did, for how they treated me, or how they treated someone else." But what benefit is there from that? There's actually none. And it's really, really to bring the strong mind of questioning in. This (what to call it?) impulse for revenge -- it's very, very human, apparently. And it's really interesting, again, to bring the mindfulness to that and see, what's that about? What am I wanting when I'm seeking revenge in any form or another?
And I think that if I really pay attention to this feeling -- first of all, I need to notice that it's there. And if I really pay attention to it and let the mindfulness do its delicate work, it might be that what I'm wanting is to equalize a sense of powerlessness. What we were talking about earlier, it might be that a feeling of powerlessness is one of the quieter feelings at the bottom of the anger. "I felt powerless, or I feel powerless, because they did this to so-and-so. And I want them to feel powerless. I want them to experience the powerlessness that I felt." Do you understand what I'm saying? [affirmative noises] Very often, that's hidden. It's like we want to equalize something in terms of powerlessness. Now, first of all, again, I need to acknowledge that that's there, and then I need to maybe contact this feeling, contact this wish, and then be, similarly, with the feeling of powerlessness. And what happens if I can -- same thing, make the same gesture [cupping hands] -- if I can hold that feeling of powerlessness in an awareness that's kind and allowing? That, too, will probably trace down to feelings more of sadness, etc.
[18:18] But I would also recognize, in that, that if they were to feel powerless, the mindfulness will tell me, the quiet mindfulness will tell me, if they were to feel powerless, it would not make me happy. It would be clear. I can imagine that and see: it's not going to give me happiness or satisfaction. And in fact, and again, in the States, there was a study around the death penalty. And apparently, a lot of families of murder victims, when the murderer is being put to death, they want the death penalty, and some of them actually want to be there and witness it. And they followed this up in a study, some psychologists, and they didn't find one instance of a person feeling satisfied after that. They thought they would be. They thought, "This will really do it for me. This will bring an end. It will bring closure, bring justice, if I see this monster die, or whatever, if I feel like there's this equalizing." But actually it didn't. It didn't bring that at all.
This is all about investigation. There's a curious property of anger, that it builds on itself. So years ago, I must've been twenty-two or twenty-three or something. I don't know. And I went into psychotherapy, quite an intense psychotherapy process. And I was in the beginning stages. And the therapist said to me, "You've got some anger that needs to come out. You know, you've got some stuff." So she suggested, "Why don't you go to the local YMCA, and they've got a gym there, and you can get one of those big punchbags and punch your anger out." So this I dutifully did. And this punchbag was, I mean, huge. It was bigger than I was. And the room was full of, like, professional and semi-professional boxers, and I ... [laughs]
Anyway, so I would punch this thing, and it was interesting. So I would do something, get in contact with the anger, and then punch it. After a while, what I noticed was I got more angry in punching it. And I thought, "Oh, this is good. Now I'm really getting in contact with the anger. It's really coming out!" Punch, punch, punch, punch, punch -- so much, my hands were actually bleeding after a while. And this is over some weeks. But then it kind of dawned on me a little. It's like, is this actually what's going on, that I'm connecting with more anger inside that's stored there, and releasing it? Or is it actually, in the process, that I'm kind of feeding something? And I have to be really honest, and it felt like the second one. Very interesting. Anger has a way of building on itself. If it's not related to correctly, it has a snowball effect. Not always, but this is all in a realm of investigation now, bringing the questioning in. What's going on here? And it takes a lot of honesty and a lot of courage to actually really discern, and be honest: "Could be this. Could be that. Let's have a look."
[21:43] In a way, the quality of equanimity -- has everyone heard this word, 'equanimity'? In a way, it's the opposite of anger or desire. It's a kind of quietening of those impulses. There are lots of ways in practice to cultivate that, but it's interesting. There's a discourse of the Buddha. I can't remember exactly where it is. It's somewhere in the Pali Canon. And he's talking about anger and the reasons for being angry. And someone asked him a question. He says, "Well, generally, you know, there are nine reasons to be angry," he says. [laughs] Like this list. [laughter] So he goes:
(1) Either a person a thinks, "In the past such-and-such a person [that they're angry at] harmed me." That's one reason.
(2) Or they think, "In the past such-and-such a person harmed those I love." Second reason.
(3) Or they think -- third reason, quite interesting -- "This person was helpful to those I don't like." [laughter]
(4--6) So there are those three, and then he says, "And basically" -- or in the present, you feel like, "In the present, this person is harming me, is harming those I love, is helpful to those I don't."
(7--9) "Or in the in the future ..."[7]
So it's a curious, sort of grid-like structure he comes up with. He said, basically, it's one of those. And then he does something even more strange. He goes, "And then you should reflect, 'Well, what should I expect? It's the way of the world.'"[8] [laughter] So it's like, there's a fine line here between equanimity and kind of cynicism, because equanimity does not have the kind of coldness of indifference or the 'closed down'-ness of cynicism. It's something open. But in a way, strange as that is, the statement of the Buddha and a way of going about it -- he's actually saying something, that this happens, as human beings. We get into conflict, and it is kind of the way of the world. And there's a way we can relate to that that exacerbates the anger. Or there's a way that can kind of soften it and open out.
[23:57] But I don't know if any of you -- work situations or whatever -- if I think, like, for Gaia House, and the kind of politics that goes on behind the scenes at Gaia House. And Gaia House has become a big institution over the years. I don't know if you're aware of this: board of trustees, and staff people, and teachers, and this, and that. And of course, everyone has an opinion. And there can be, at times, it's very easy when people have differing opinions, like in a board meeting or something, to make it about the person. And this is another thing that anger does. It makes it about the person. I may come back to this. But makes it about the person. And we think that person -- and you can be in a meeting of twenty-five people, and you're focusing on that person and what's wrong with them, or whatever. But if I just reflect on some of that behind-the-scenes Gaia House thing, it's like -- well, a lot of it's quite natural, because a lot of it is merely a play of, say, more traditionalist ideas with more ... What's the opposite of traditionalist?
Yogi: Innovative.
Rob: Innovative, yeah. And these two forces -- and it's like, you know what? That's going to play out everywhere, absolutely everywhere. And it's more a matter of like, well, who's going to play this part, and who's going to play that part? [laughter] That's how it is. It's not only that in the very conversation -- I was going to say 'battle.' Conversation. [laughter] In the very conversation between traditionalists and innovation, there's going to be some heat. There are going to be some sparks. But it's like, there's actually a creative tension as well. If I take it too personally, then it gets really problematic and unskilful. That's just one way of looking at it that kind of sees more the human drama of it, rather than the personalizing of it, which really feeds anger.
Remember that thing I said about the three roommates? And it was the tough, menacing one, and the sweet-faced liar, and then the other one who's kind of egging them on -- that's delusion, okay? And part of delusion is the belief in the ego, the self, as being something separate and real. And if you like, that sits at the root of the problem of anger -- a lot of other problems too.
But let's talk about this a little bit. Have you noticed how easily one response is anger, either to others or to ourselves, when the self feels threatened? You see this in animals, of course, as well. But with humans, it has this extra dimension. When the self-view or the identity is threatened or insulted, then there's anger. We think a certain thing of our self, and someone questions that or where we're identified with, then very easily there's anger in response. Somehow the self and anger go together in quite an intimate way. The self also has this capacity to identify with one end of two poles -- so right and wrong, or good and evil. You think, for instance, about, like, the so-called war on terror. You remember when it all started, and you got George W. on one side and Osama bin Laden on the other, both completely convinced they're in a holy war against evil. Something is going on there about polarity, and it's very -- I mean, that's quite a big example. It's very easy to believe we're right in a battle against wrong. The self gets identified with one pole, and that whole kind of structure there of thinking exacerbates it. It fans this fire of anger, hugely.
[28:09] That's not to say that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong that we need to take care with. So not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have to really be careful. Maybe a question: what is it that I'm identifying with? That would be a really good question when we feel anger: what am I identifying with? Can I actually look at it as a process of identification and find out what I'm identifying with?
So I'm quite involved, for instance, in environmental activism. Very, very easy to make an us or them out of the thing -- a mistake, a real mistake, but very easy. What am I identifying with when that happens, if I'm involved in that kind of thing? And that's not to say not to speak up, as we said earlier in the morning. But what will ...? It's such a fine line. It's such an art to do that without the rigidity of identification. So "What am I identifying with?" can be a very helpful question to put in there. That opens it out more.
Like I said, when there's anger at someone or a group of people, we make it very much about this person, and then we're angry at the person. So we can also kind of question the self of the other person. In other words, I tend to solidify them as a separate being and get angry with them, their essence, their being. I might ask, if I'm angry at you, if there's something that's got me really enraged at you, what exactly am I angry with? Who is it? Am I angry at your hair? I mean, maybe I am angry at your hair. [laughs] But if something's happened, and my [anger] -- I make it about the person. But if I start to kind of pull at what the person is -- am I angry at their body? At their hair? At their liver? At their bones? Am I angry at their emotions? Well, if that feels more like it, okay, but where do these emotions come from? Are the emotions the person? When I feel it's a person that I'm angry with, the whole cycle of anger gets solidified, extra. Do you see that? I demonize someone.
[30:43] So what we're interested in is just a way of playing. You can kind of pull apart the person and see, "Oh, there's actually nothing there for my anger to land, for me to be angry with." Am I angry at their thoughts? And again, you think, "Yeah! If they didn't think that ..." But are the thoughts the person? The thoughts come and go. And where do the thoughts come from? I can't find a person in there. Really, really skilful. And this is a little bit more advanced than simple mindfulness, but really, really skilful to have a look and actually pull apart and see there's nothing that I can really be angry with. Certainly there are thoughts, and there are perceptions, and there are views, and there are opinions, and there are emotions, and all this, and there's speech. But none of that is the person. And I can't find a person, a real thing, that gives rise to all that either. Where is it going to be? Where is it?
So there's a famous little story. I can't remember where it comes from. It's that you're out in a little boat, and this other boat comes, maybe out through -- and crashes into your boat. And you think, "What the hell is this person thinking? This nincompoop!" And you start to get angry with the sailor in the other boat. And then you look, and the boat is empty. It's a similar thing with anger. It's like, who exactly am I angry at?
So it's not an ultimate view. In other words, you don't always walk around kind of pulling people apart like this, or yourself. It's more like there's a flexibility to move into that view when it's a problem, and pull it apart, so that it's like the anger has nothing to build on, and it can just evaporate. Flexibility of view, responsiveness of view, it's fundamentally important in practice. So at times, me and you -- this self and that self -- very, very important. At other times, let's just dissolve me or dissolve you or dissolve both of us -- really, really skilful. I can't pretend that, okay? So you might be hearing this and thinking, "Well, I just pretend that there's no self there," but I have to actually work with this, so it becomes something real.
[33:05] What happens to the perception when we get angry? You've heard this phrase, "He was seeing red." What does it mean? It's actually in the language. It's like something happens to the way we see when there's a lot of anger. We're actually seeing differently. Anger colours the perception. This is massive and massively significant. Usually, we're only aware of that after the fact, once we've calmed down a little bit. And then, if we're honest and we have some maturity psychologically, we can actually admit that: "Oh, I was just, you know, you just seemed like a monster to me in that moment," or whatever. And sometimes people really do. In the moment of the anger, it's so much coloured the perception that all we see is what's negative, and we're colouring it negative. And we literally only see what's wrong with the other person, and totally focused on that.
So admitting this, usually we see it afterwards. It's a really important piece, though, because if I get angry, and then my perception is coloured negatively, then what's going to happen in that moment? I then start reacting again to the negative perception that I'm projecting. I start reacting to the very painting that I put out there. And then what happens? I get more angry. The perception gets more coloured. I start reacting more. That's how anger sticks together. It's right there. That's part of it. That's how anger sticks together, right there in the colouring of perception. And it's a fundamentally important kind of Dharma insight.
So anger, and if you take its opposite, loving-kindness, mettā, they're both what we could say "fabricated perceptions." In other words, they colour the perception this way and that. Which do I believe more? Which feels more authentic? Oftentimes, especially in the beginning, when people practise loving-kindness, they feel like, "It's just pretending. It's just, like, fake. You know, you're sitting there in a nice pink bubble, wishing everyone well, and it's not real." When we're in the middle of anger, we feel that's really real. That's really how things are, how this person is. I wonder if that could be reversed, that actually we're more suspicious of the view of anger and aversion than we are of the loving-kindness. Because, in fact, the view of mettā is what we could say "less fabricated," it's more real. It's more real, but it takes a while to see that.
[36:00] If we say anger is a construction, that's an interesting way of thinking about it anyway. Anger is a construction. How does it get constructed? How does it get built? How does this difficult mind state get built? That's already a different way of thinking about it. How does it get built? So we can see, one of the things we can see is aversion and greed, generally they feed each other, so they can lead to each other. If I am thinking with aversion or feeling with aversion, like someone or something ... Maybe I'm in a relationship, and I start to view someone, a friend or a partner or whatever, with aversion. Then that very aversion starts feeding greed: "Don't like this. Something other, on the other side of the fence -- the grass is greener." And it will feed the greed. The aversion is feeding the greed. And greed can also feed aversion. They go together, these two. They feed each other.
So oftentimes, where there's aversion, it will throw greed out as a kind of sideline. And where there's greed, you can see, obviously, how much anger comes in reactivity to when people feel like their little pot of something is threatened. But you could even see it, say, if you've been on a retreat, and you think, "Right!" Actually, if we don't mind borrowing John's question from earlier, this wanting to grab hold of calmness, "Right, this is my chance. This is my meditation session. I want the calmness. This is my retreat. I came for the concentration." Then how easily this poor person sitting next to you, who's merely breathing, and you can hear it [laughter], starts to get looked on as if they would die ... The greed is feeding the aversion. And they feed each other here. And similarly with John, in relationship with thoughts, it's like, "I want the calmness. I push away the thoughts. Pushing away the thoughts, I want the calmness." They feed each other.
[38:15] All of it's like a spell. The mind, it's woven a spell. They're feeding each other. And both the aversion and the greed, it's like they're playing cunning tricks on the mind, on the perception. And the question is, can I realize this? How much am I believing what they're saying and what the perception is? So this really brings a [question]. Whenever there's anger and aversion, can the questioning come in? What am I believing here? What am I believing? Am I believing this? Am I believing the perception right now? Even just to realize that they're there, and hold in the mind the notion that these are playing tricks, are distorting the perception -- even that does something helpful. We believe it less, and something can soften. Something really softens.
So if we continue this question, how does this whole construction get constructed? How does it get built? This thing that's throwing out illusion, how does it all get built? Partly it's because of perceptions and views. And if you think back, the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsis and the Hutus, and what was happening there was a certain perception along ethnic lines was being fed. And a certain view of others was being fed along tribal and ethnic lines. And that perception, that view, that belief was underpinning the whole thing. Or you think about the Nazis and, say, the Jews or whoever, in the Second World War.
I read a little passage. I think it was from the autobiography of a guard who was in the prison which held Nelson Mandela. So he was a prison guard in that prison. And he said they were trained, deliberately trained to regard the Black prisoners as less than human. There was an official policy, and they were actually trained in how to do that -- literally, he said, as no better than animals. There's actually a view and a perception getting fed there. Now, of course, that's very gross example, but on these kind of views and perceptions, anger rests.
[40:52] So if we take it to a much more everyday, less dramatic thing, something's happened between you and I. We've gotten into an argument or some misunderstanding. And how often I might assume that I know what your intentions were! That's partly what's going on when there's anger. It's that I don't even realize that I've already assumed what your intentions were when you did this or that, or you didn't do this or that, or you said this or that. And all of it is an assumption. I don't realize that. So what would it be, not necessarily to get rid of the assumptions, but actually to know that they're there, to be aware that there are assumptions, specifically around what the intentions of the other person were? That's a real key point.
Also what their perceptions were. So another person might have a different perception of a situation, and you're assuming that they perceived it just as you did. They might have different information about what happened. These are all assumptions. They come in so quickly, and on them, my anger rests. Without them, once I know, "Oh, their intention was something different than what I'm assuming," it's like the anger doesn't really have a base, doesn't really have a support.
So to know that these kind of assumptions are going. And what are they? And what am I assuming? Actually ask yourself: what am I assuming? Or you can -- this is getting into speech now, but actually voice it: "Well, I was assuming this. I just want to check out, is that right?" Introducing some healthy doubt and scepticism about the assumptions that we have about intention, about perception.
[42:44] So even ... and again, sorry to pick on John. [laughter] If I sit down to meditate, and I think thought should not be happening, or with Lydia, I think tiredness should not be happening, then the response to that will be aversion. We touched on this in the group, didn't we? It's resting on the assumption that I think something should not be happening. But if I actually puncture that assumption and realize, "Of course, of course tiredness and dullness are going to arise. Of course thought is going to arise," then I'm operating with very different assumptions. And the anger has less to stand on, yeah? So it's also internal. All this is about thought and assumption and subtle views that are in there, that the anger needs, aversion needs, the judgment, judgmentalism needs.
Let's take this a little bit more subtly, if that's okay. We're still with this question: how is it that this whole thing is getting constructed, this whole mass of spell and illusion? How is it getting built? When there is anger, for instance, there will be aversion to the experience of anger itself. Okay, this is a really key piece: anger or aversion, anywhere on the spectrum, feels uncomfortable. It's not a pleasant, not a nice feeling. What happens as part of the snowballing is we get aversive to the actual experience of the mood -- "I don't like it" -- particularly to the physical sensations that are involved, or the way the mind feels so tight and hot and contracted, or the pressure in the body.
So oftentimes, when there's really a lot of anger, have you noticed how it feels like a pressure inside, feels like something just is going to burst? It's because we're reacting to that pressure, often, that we explode with anger. It's not tolerable here. It's too much pressure, and it just -- I feel like if I can just vughhh, get it out, it will get rid of the pressure and the feelings that I'm ... Do you understand what I'm saying? There's aversion to the experience itself. Yeah? That's key. That's absolutely key. That's why, as human beings, there's a danger of us lashing out and being compulsive when there's a feeling like anger. We can't contain it. We want the release.
[45:27] So what to do with that? That's one piece we can really look at and really gain some skill with. In the guided meditation this morning, towards the end, I said, well, maybe you can find a way of breathing that kind of addresses whatever is going on. So maybe there is anger, and here I am, meditating, and maybe there's a way of breathing that just feels like it's just somehow soothing that anger, or giving it more space in some way. That's actually really skilful. Then I'm easing the pressure of these uncomfortable sensations, working skilfully with the breath to soften the mind state. And of course there's the mettā, which we touched on, we just mentioned.
But in a way, if we come back to the piece we talked about this morning with mindfulness, there's the possibility of actually coming into contact with those sensations which feel difficult. And sometimes, it's a bit like what Lydia was asking with the tiredness. Just knowing that there's aversion towards the sensations, so aversion towards the sensations of anger -- just knowing that. Sometimes just knowing it can be enough to soften the aversion towards the experience of anger.
Sometimes that's not enough, and then is it possible to somehow find a way to soften that aversion? This is a skill. This is absolutely treasure. A priceless skill we can have as human beings is learning to relax and soften our relationship with what's going on. So for example, it might be there's pain. Let's talk about more subtle aversion. There's pain in the knee or in the back when you're meditating. And there's aversion towards that: "I want to get rid of it. I want to push it away." Learning how to actually relax that aversion. Sometimes I can relax the body, the rest of the body, and that relaxes the aversion, because the aversion will manifest in a kind of tension, and relaxing the tension happens to relax the aversion, sometimes.
Sometimes you can practise in a way where you're really emphasizing a kind of allowing or welcoming. So it's less about noticing clearly, like what Tara was asking this morning about really bright awareness. It's actually less about that, less about this kind of really precise noting, and more putting all the emphasis of the mindfulness on a kind of welcoming. Let's say it's a pain in the knee: welcome it, welcome. Or welcome the unpleasant sensations of anger. Really, really allowing it, allowing it, allowing it, because there will be the opposite of that; there will be this pushing away. That's really, really valuable to learn how to do that. Or to give it more space. You're actually creating more space, more room for it, because again, there will be a contraction around what's difficult -- making more space, and letting it be there, letting it be there, letting it be there.
[48:57] So we can assume that when we're being mindful, that is going on. And it is, to a degree. But we can do it more. And that's a huge, huge skill. I mean, it's really, really so helpful if you can begin to learn how to do that, and actually increase the sort of degree of allowing, welcoming, of sort of softening of the relationship towards something -- massive. Then what we're doing is, we're being mindful not just of object, but also of the relationship with it. And that's really important.
Better to learn in the shallow end. So things like what Lydia was saying, the experience of tiredness or a pain in the back or something -- easier there to learn softening, softening, softening the relationship, relaxing the aversion. Much easier there than when it's some big thing. But it's like learning to swim. You learn to swim in the shallow end, and eventually you can swim anywhere. So exactly like Lydia was saying, it's like, there's tiredness. Can I find the tiredness? Some of you weren't here in the group, but Lydia was asking this question. It's like the actual experience of tiredness -- it feels overwhelming. If I go and find it, I usually only find some small area of unpleasant sensation somewhere, usually in the head (very interestingly). If I can bring the mindfulness to that, and then realize there's aversion -- "There's aversion there. That's what's pumping it up" -- and learn to just let it be, let it be, relax the aversion, allow it to be unpleasant, that area of sensation, somehow it deflates the whole thing. Aversion is an ingredient of tiredness most of the time, and certainly an ingredient of the hindrance of sloth and torpor.
[50:58] Last thing to say now. This capacity to do this is massive, massively significant. If I can learn this over time, if I can really develop this, I start to see something really, really interesting. It's not just that aversion and anger colour my perception of this or that. They actually build it. They actually create that perception as a perception, I start to see as I go deeper and deeper into meditation. What will happen to that tiredness, if I can be with it, that sensation, if I can be with it in a way that just allows it, allows it, allows it, it will actually dissolve as an experience. Something very mysterious is going on here, something very, very mysterious about the nature of perception. I need this thing to be angry at; otherwise I've got nothing to be angry at. But as I let go of the anger, the thing dissolves (or of the aversion; it's more subtle). They depend on each other. It's very, very curious.
Have any of you had this experience in meditation? There's a pain, and you're being with it and allowing it and allowing it, and then it dissolves. Do you ever wonder what's going on there? It's not just a physiological thing. Something else is going [on]. It's telling us something profound about the nature of perception.
[52:31] I'm going to end there. All this, everything that we've been saying today -- anger is human. Let's just recap. Anger is human. Aversion is definitely human. It needs not judgment, but it needs interest. Really need to get interested in it. There's so much to learn here. There's so much to find out about how it's all working.
The Buddha said, if you can really understand aversion, which means how it's built, how it's constructed, as we were talking, and particularly this last thing that we were talking about -- its effects on the world of perception -- he said, if you can really understand aversion, there's nothing left, nothing more to understand. That's it. So rather than this thing being a problem, it can actually be an avenue to deeper and deeper insight, that aversion itself can be that which is the road to liberation -- not the cultivation of it, but the understanding of it can be the road to liberation. There's something here. It's tied up with the most profound levels of insight.
