To abandon anger

Anger arises

when we fail to obtain that which we want,

or obtain that which we do not.


The root of anger is craving.

Craving’s root is the illusion

that something other will make us happy,

if we possess it.


When we do not accept that which comes our way,

we reject the blessings of wisdom and compassion

that accompany all experience.


To abandon anger, first abandon craving.

To abandon craving,

abandon the illusion of happiness obtained.


To abandon all three,

accept the blessings of experience.

About Tashi Nyima

I am a Dharma student, and aspire to be a companion on the path. I trust that these texts can offer a general approach and basic tools for practicing the Buddha's way to enlightenment. ||| Soy un estudiante del Dharma, y aspiro a ser un compañero en el sendero. Espero que estos textos ofrezcan a algunos un mapa general y herramientas básicas para la práctica del sendero a la iluminación que nos ofrece el Buda.
This entry was posted in Dharma View. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to To abandon anger

  1. Yue-han Su says:

    Thank you for this. This quotation suggests that ignorance (“the illusion” here) is really our greatest problem. Is this perhaps why “Right View” is at the top of the Eight-fold path? If we start by shining light on our ignorance, then nature of craving and clinging become apparent. After we see these clearly, our anger has nothing in which to take root.

    • Tashi Nyima says:

      Yes! Remembering always that attachment to any view is also attachment…

      The tetralemma is often misconstrued as a statement on ontology (Not this. Not that. Not both. Not neither.) It is, however, a statement on views. In his Mula madhyamaka karika, Arya Nagarjuna also gives us a ‘positive’ tetralemma: “This. That. Both. Neither.”

      • Yue-han Su says:

        That’s a good observation, if I understand your point. Buddhism does not attempt to “figure out” reality, and does not it offer a comprehensive cosmology. Nor does it deny phenomena. The Universe may be “This. That. Both. Neither” (and my guess is that it is!) but the Buddha suggests that we attend instead to our perceptions, behavior, conceits, and so on, until we see that all views are essentially empty — “Not this; Not that; Both; Neither.” So the knowledge that we seek is not an absolute understanding of existence — which is quite beyond us (or me at least!) — but a clear insight into our situation whatever it might be.

        I am getting kind of wordy — a sure sign of another view!

      • Tashi Nyima says:

        Many try to assign ontological value to the Buddha’s teachings. He Himself said He was not interested in speculating about ‘unanswearable questions’. His intention, and that of His followers, is soteriological. Every sentient being will have a different view, because there are as many perspectives as there are points of observation.

  2. Yue-han Su says:

    Thank you, and I learned a new word: “soteriological”; “soteriology”. Yes, we wish that we and all sentient beings may be liberated from suffering.

    • Tashi Nyima says:

      Sorry. Formal studies in religion often seem to hinder clear communication, rather than advance it… I should have said that the purpose of the Dharma is not philosophical, but rather practical: liberation.

Leave a Reply to Yue-han Su Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s