Can arahants be hostile?

[Soren]

I just found out that the GWV forums are no longer being searched by the Google search engine.  The reason why the GWV forums are no longer being searched by the Google search engine is because when a member joins one of our forums they are sent an email from the forum welcoming them to the forum.  However, SPAM engines use false email addresses, which means the GWV forums are sending large volumes of bouncing messages out to the WWW, which has caused the Google search engine to stop searching the GWV forums.

Therefore it is clear that SPAM is a threat to freedom of speech, and an obstruction of our freedom of religion.  If people are serious about freedom of speech and freedom of religion, then they will figure out a way to eliminate SPAM and SPAMers without eroding personal freedom.  My solution to the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression is to suggest that a war begin against SPAM and SPAMers.  This means it is open season on SPAMMers.  Every SPAMMers that is killed is one less obstacle to personal freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.  Go get em.

Open Season on Spammers

Lawmakers: It's open season on spam

The problem is these articles are from 2003, and nothing has improved. I suggest public burning or impalement will reduce SPAM.

Open season for spam in GW forums?

Open season on spammers!

Dang spammers are getting it today. Hackers and spammers should all be castrated. They like Mosquitos. They serve no good purpose on this earth but to piss you off.

This seems to me like the fetter of ill-will, is it not?

[Jhanananda]

Open season on spammers!

Dang spammers are getting it today. Hackers and spammers should all be castrated. They like Mosquitos. They serve no good purpose on this earth but to piss you off.

This seems to me like the fetter of ill-will, is it not?

Well, the author confused hackers with SPAMMers.  A hacker's job is to track down vulnerabilities, which SPAMMers employ.  A hacker might help SPAMMers, but more often than not hackers are employed by software manufacturers to inform them of software vulnerabilities.

Nonetheless, wishing ill upon SPAMMers is ill-will; however, the activities of SPAMMers are bringing down the internet, and undermining our freedom if speech, so I believe it is to all of our best interested to report the problems that SPAMMers are causing. I believe it is also important to even encourage the more violent among us to take action. 

After all nations employ armies to defend their boarders.  SPAMMers are invading every nation and undermining the freedom of speech of everyone; therefore, those who want freedom of speech must act to defend the boarders of their freedom from SPAMMers.

[Soren]

Nonetheless, wishing ill upon SPAMMers is ill-will; however, the activities of SPAMMers are bringing down the internet, and undermining our freedom if speech, so I believe it is to all of our best interested to report the problems that SPAMMers are causing. I believe it is also important to even encourage the more violent among us to take action. 

Doesn't this contradict suttas like this?:

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.

After all nations employ armies to defend their boarders.  SPAMMers are invading every nation and undermining the freedom of speech of everyone; therefore, those who want freedom of speech must act to defend the boarders of their freedom from SPAMMers.

Well this analysis might hold for some, but I don't see how an arahant would ever consider it justified for themselves to do, nor would they ever encourage it to others.

[nkrivosh]

I also wonder about this. Traditionally, in the spirituality which makes sense to me, ill will is not permissible - the mind of ill-will shouldn't arise in an Enlightened being, But apparently Buddha did give talks about how to defend the nation and the necessity for kings to protect their people. Also there have been many warrior monks. Also we can think of the Bagavad Gita. It is one thing to commit a strong violent action yet keeping a benevolent mind, and another thing to commit no action but hold a mind of ill will, and project bad intentions.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Nikita, for posting your insightful response to the difficult question of allowing mystics to express themselves in a world that traditionally marginalizes them.

If SPAM is not resolved, then the WWW is going to collapse under a mountain of SPAM.  Suspending my email account, website and forums, because they are under attack by SPAMMers is not the way to correct the problem.  Instead it is a way for SPAMMers to filibuster to determine who gets heard and who does not.

[Soren]

I also wonder about this. Traditionally, in the spirituality which makes sense to me, ill will is not permissible - the mind of ill-will shouldn't arise in an Enlightened being, But apparently Buddha did give talks about how to defend the nation and the necessity for kings to protect their people. Also there have been many warrior monks. Also we can think of the Bagavad Gita. It is one thing to commit a strong violent action yet keeping a benevolent mind, and another thing to commit no action but hold a mind of ill will, and project bad intentions.

At what point do the excuses stop? Can you tell me exactly where to draw the line? And can you reference me to those talks?

[Alexander]

At what point do the excuses stop? Can you tell me exactly where to draw the line? And can you reference me to those talks?

Nonreturners and arahants are completely without ill will, sadness, loneliness, anger, et al. Or well - it is somewhat hard to explain. At the very least these states do not exist for superior persons in the same sense they do for laypersons; negative emotions have been permanently "transformed" in nonreturners, for example, and if they (or arahants) appear to be hostile, then this is better understood as an outward appearance of that emotion, than it actually existing there in substance.

[nkrivosh]

At what point do the excuses stop? Can you tell me exactly where to draw the line? And can you reference me to those talks?

I didn't mean to make any excuses. Actually I am also bothered by Jhananda's expressed desire to kill SPAMers. But then again I am not the one claiming to be enlightened and I have yet to understand and define what that means for myself. I don't know where to draw the line, and ultimately I believe the line is drawn by each individual.

The references I made are to two books published by the Vipassana Research Institute - 1. Defense Against External Invasion. 2. How to Defend the Republic. There are talks in the suttas but I cant quote them for you, it would require some research.

I agree that all too often there are excuses for the wrong behavior of enlightened people. Such as behavior being only an outward appearance of wrong action whereas actually inside they remain in control , peaceful, and tranquil. Although I don't think this is likely to be true, I don't rule it out as a possibility. Furthermore, Jhananda is not claiming to remain tranquil while stating his desire to kill SPAMers. And, as I am currently staying with him, I also don't believe that he is tranquil at those times anyway. It is all too easy to point the finger and find faults though. I am still interested to understand why, even though Jhananda feels anger and has ill-will, he still believes to be Enlightened and what gives him this confidence. Maybe I will never know the truth about him, but hopefully at some point I'll get enough insight and personal experience to answer these things confidently for myself.     

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you friends for posting your comments.

Michael Hawkins recently posted the following link to his FaceBook page.
How To Make The World Safer For Email
I responded

If SPAM is not resolved, then the World Wide Web is going to collapse under a mountain of SPAM. Suspending my email account, website and forums, because they are under attack by SPAMMers is not the way to correct the problem. Instead it is a way for SPAMMers to filibuster to determine who gets heard and who does not.

Michael Hawkins responded

I thought of you when posting this, Jeffrey. I am AMAZED at the flood of spam that I found trying to get onto your forum -- a targeted attack if there ever was one.

My response

Thanks, Michael Hawkins, I am often dismissed as a malcontent paranoid, so it is good for others to find support for my premise that my work has flown in the face of accepted belief systems, which has resulted in uncountable means of obstruction.

The 13 years that I have found myself completely marginalized just for meditating deeper than most has had both its bliss and unprecedented frustration.  I often think of Mohammed, who was marginalized within Arabian social circles, and his own family, for meditating deeply and expressing the insights that came from his deep meditations.

I had a great deal of conflict accepting Mohammed as an enlightened one when I knew that he took the warrior's path, but after my own 13 years of being outcast, I can see that it might have been the right time to do so, for him.  Not that I have any intention to become a warrior, nor do I have any intention of harming SPAMMers; however, I would not feel any sorrow if I heard a SPAMMer had been murdered.

While we are on the topic of marginalized mystics, it has occurred to me that John the Baptist and Jesus the Nazarite most probably had a suicide pact, because they sure did everything they could to get arrested and martyred. So, the history of mystics shows that they tend to experience either martyrdom or ignominy.  I am not inclined to roll over and play dead, just because the religious hegemony wants me to; so having the SPAMMers hijacking my work sure does not make me feel compassion toward them.

Just a note on references to how Siddhartha Gautama felt about capital punishment, I do not have the sutta quotes; however, I recall reading a number of suttas where Siddhartha Gautama had a conversation with a king regarding the presence of a soul or not.  The king described testing the theory of a soul by conducting a number of tests upon prisoners that involved gruesome executions.  I was surprised that at no time in that conversation did Siddhartha Gautama ever express concern for the welfare of the executed, nor a rejection of capital punishment.  If you want to find those suttas, then you will find many of them in the Samyutta Nikaya.

[Soren]

Nonreturners and arahants are completely without ill will, sadness, loneliness, anger, et al.

This I know. The point is that, if Jhananada is clearly with ill-will, then he is not an arahant or nonreturner.

At the very least these states do not exist for superior persons in the same sense they do for laypersons; negative emotions have been permanently "transformed" in nonreturners, for example, and if they (or arahants) appear to be hostile, then this is better understood as an outward appearance of that emotion, than it actually existing there in substance.

Well this is called non falsifiable - in other words, it is impossible to prove that somebody isn't an arahant because the copout "that is only an outward appearance" always exist. I seem to believe that if somebody is enlightened then not only would the inward negative emotions be gone, but also any outward appearance.

Where else could an outward appearance be coming from? Does it just appear without entering Jhananda's mind, against his free will, and completely against his awareness? That doesn't seem plausible...

   All
tremble at the rod,
   all
are fearful of death.
Drawing the parallel to
   yourself,
neither kill nor get others to kill.

   All
tremble at the rod,
   all
hold their life dear.
Drawing the parallel to
   yourself,
neither kill nor get others to kill.

Let no one deceive another
or despise anyone anywhere,
or through anger or irritation
wish for another to suffer.

]I agree that all too often there are excuses for the wrong behavior of enlightened people. Such as behavior being only an outward appearance of wrong action whereas actually inside they remain in control , peaceful, and tranquil. Although I don't think this is likely to be true, I don't rule it out as a possibility. Furthermore, Jhananda is not claiming to remain tranquil while stating his desire to kill SPAMers. And, as I am currently staying with him, I also don't believe that he is tranquil at those times anyway. It is all too easy to point the finger and find faults though. I am still interested to understand why, even though Jhananda feels anger and has ill-will, he still believes to be Enlightened and what gives him this confidence. Maybe I will never know the truth about him, but hopefully at some point I'll get enough insight and personal experience to answer these things confidently for myself.     

I understand. Personally, my idea on what an enlightened individual is like has less doubt.

[Alexander]

Well this is called non falsifiable - in other words, it is impossible to prove that somebody isn't an arahant because the copout "that is only an outward appearance" always exist.

It depends a lot on destiny. Someone like Ramana Maharshi would meet your criteria, but other arahants (Mohammed as a political saint, Jesus who chased the moneychangers out of the temple) would not. If an arahant's "mission" involves him being engaged in the world, then he'll exhibit things like hostility, or rancor, to get by practically. It isn't until a liberated one's mahasamadhi, when he is finally without anything.

[Soren]

Well this is called non falsifiable - in other words, it is impossible to prove that somebody isn't an arahant because the copout "that is only an outward appearance" always exist.

It depends a lot on destiny. Someone like Ramana Maharshi would meet your criteria, but other arahants (Mohammed as a political saint, Jesus who chased the moneychangers out of the temple) would not. If an arahant's "mission" involves him being engaged in the world, then he'll exhibit things like hostility, or rancor, to get by practically. It isn't until a liberated one's mahasamadhi, when he is finally without anything.

Well, I see no reason to believe that Mohammed and Jesus were arahants. Both seemed to have lust for immaterial existence, personality belief, attachment to rites and rituals, and maybe sensual desire. But even if they were, these action's don't seem to necessary align:

This means it is open season on SPAMMers.  Every SPAMMers that is killed is one less obstacle to personal freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.  Go get em.
[...] I suggest public burning or impalement will reduce SPAM.

And really the big question is again: where is the line drawn? Every cult seems to be able to justify actions of a guru that don't align with teachings by drawing the line "just there" (right at the guru's feet) or saying that the guru is inwardly disenchanted from it. But this is an ex post facto law, meaning that there wasn't really any clear idea of what's right before the actions happened, the definitions and arguments were made after the actions so that no matter what they could be justified.

he'll exhibit things like hostility, or rancor, to get by practically.

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.

[Alexander]

Well if you need a scriptural justification (which I don't think you should - you can get this knowledge from the ariyas on this forum directly):

Then, after the night had passed, the Blessed One early in the morning put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, went to Prince Abhaya's home. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. Prince Abhaya, with his own hand, served and satisfied the Blessed One with fine staple and non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his bowl, Prince Abhaya took a lower seat and sat down to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, would the Tathágata say words that are un-endearing and disagreeable to others?"

"Prince, there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that."

"Then right here, venerable sir, the Niganthas are destroyed."

"But prince, why do you say, 'then right here, venerable sir, the Niganthas are destroyed'?"

"Just yesterday, venerable sir, I went to Nigantha Nataputta and... he said to me...'Come now, prince. Go to the contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: "Venerable sir, would the Tathágata say words that are un-endearing and disagreeable to others?"... Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up.'"

Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?"

"I would take it out, venerable sir. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy."

"In the same way, prince:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be un-factual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), un-endearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, un-endearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but un-endearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be un-factual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathágata has sympathy for living beings."

So in other words an arahant is entirely capable of being disagreeable or hostile. But that's impertinent because "being super nice" is not the judge of arahantship. Arahantship means the seven marks (mindfulness, discriminative wisdom, viriya, joy, tranquility, equanimity and samadhi).

And really the big question is again: where is the line drawn? Every cult seems to be able to justify actions of a guru that don't align with teachings by drawing the line "just there" (right at the guru's feet) or saying that the guru is inwardly disenchanted from it. But this is an ex post facto law, meaning that there wasn't really any clear idea of what's right before the actions happened, the definitions and arguments were made after the actions so that no matter what they could be justified.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying the marginalized and obscure-ass Jeff Brooks is an example of a cult guru? I've given him fifty bucks, but as far as I know he doesn't own any Rolls-Royces.

Well, I see no reason to believe that Mohammed and Jesus were arahants.

This is wrong view. It is also very good karma to revere noble persons like them.

[Jhanananda]

Well if you need a scriptural justification (which I don't think you should - you can get this knowledge from the ariyas on this forum directly):

In my search I found it was always good to seek confirmation from multiple sources, but I also found that I could not depend upon any single source, because every religion has traditionally translated and interpreted their doctrine with an unreliable bias.

Then, after the night had passed, the Blessed One early in the morning put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, went to Prince Abhaya's home. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. Prince Abhaya, with his own hand, served and satisfied the Blessed One with fine staple and non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his bowl, Prince Abhaya took a lower seat and sat down to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, would the Tathágata say words that are un-endearing and disagreeable to others?"

"Prince, there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that."

"Then right here, venerable sir, the Niganthas are destroyed."

"But prince, why do you say, 'then right here, venerable sir, the Niganthas are destroyed'?"

"Just yesterday, venerable sir, I went to Nigantha Nataputta and... he said to me...'Come now, prince. Go to the contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: "Venerable sir, would the Tathágata say words that are un-endearing and disagreeable to others?"... Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up.'"

Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?"

"I would take it out, venerable sir. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy."

"In the same way, prince:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be un-factual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), un-endearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, un-endearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but un-endearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be un-factual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathágata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathágata has sympathy for living beings."

This is a good sutta quote in support of a reasonable reason for anger expressed by an arhatta.  There might be a few more reasons to consider. Here are three more links to the same sutta on the GWV website.
Abhaya Raja Kumara Sutta MN 58
Abhaya Raja Kumara Sutta MN 58
Abhaya Raja Kumara Sutta MN 58

So in other words an arahant is entirely capable of being disagreeable or hostile. But that's impertinent because "being super nice" is not the judge of arahantship. Arahantship means the seven marks (mindfulness, discriminative wisdom, viriya, joy, tranquility, equanimity and samadhi).

This is a very good point.  I like to quote Jesus here "we know a tree by its fruit" and it is reasonable to consider that he was referring both to modest and ethical behavior, as well as the superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life.

And really the big question is again: where is the line drawn? Every cult seems to be able to justify actions of a guru that don't align with teachings by drawing the line "just there" (right at the guru's feet) or saying that the guru is inwardly disenchanted from it. But this is an ex post facto law, meaning that there wasn't really any clear idea of what's right before the actions happened, the definitions and arguments were made after the actions so that no matter what they could be justified.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying the marginalized and obscure-ass Jeff Brooks is an example of a cult guru? I've given him fifty bucks, but as far as I know he doesn't own any Rolls-Royces.

You both make good point here.  Most cult followers make excuses for the ill-behavior of their teacher, so where do we draw the line?  I think it is best not to obsess over any guru.  Take what is good, and leave the bad, and try to live a noble life.

Well, I see no reason to believe that Mohammed and Jesus were arahants.

This is wrong view. It is also very good karma to revere noble persons like them.

As I said above, my journey was better informed by not assuming that the progenitors of all of the religions were frauds, and the only real deal was Siddhartha Gautama.  In stead I resorted to the conclusion that all religions are frauds, because they are run by frauds; however, most, if not all religions, were founded by genuine enlightened teachers; however enlightenment is not a black and white issue, but it has shades of gray.  Those shades of gray are represented by the 8 stages of the religions experience, and the other superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life.  So, perhaps not all of the progenitors of all of the religions made it all of the way to the 8th stage of the religious experience, but most of them manifested some portion of it; and most religions have traditionally misinterpreted their progenitor's life and teachings, so we cannot judge the progenitor on the nonsense that is commonly passed for his/her life and teachings.  So, let us not obsess over the human teacher: Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, Jeffrey, etc.; and let us take the good, leave the bad, and do our best to manifest in the here and now whatever is noble.

Please note:
I thought it best to split the topic as we are now on the topic of "Can arahants be hostile?", which I believe is a good topic for discussion.

[Soren]

So in other words an arahant is entirely capable of being disagreeable or hostile.

But they should have eliminated the fetter of ill-will. In the cases above where it seemed like there was disagreeableness or hostility, there was no ill-will because the words were supposed to be beneficial towards the people. But saying that we should impale and publicly burn spammers indicates actual anger and ill-will, and encouraging the violent among us to take action is not beneficial speech.

But that's impertinent because "being super nice" is not the judge of arahantship. Arahantship means the seven marks (mindfulness, discriminative wisdom, viriya, joy, tranquility, equanimity and samadhi).

It also means having destroyed the ten fetters.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying the marginalized and obscure-ass Jeff Brooks is an example of a cult guru? I've given him fifty bucks, but as far as I know he doesn't own any Rolls-Royces.

The point is that whether or not Jeff Brooks is a cult guru you are using the same obviously unfair "justification tactics" that cults do.

This is wrong view. It is also very good karma to revere noble persons like them.

Well I can still revere them without thinking them necessarily arahants. This is also a copout (...resorting to saying that I have bad karma?)... And it was an unsupported statement.