Page 2 of 2

Re: Does an arahant not feel angry at all?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:39 am
by dhammapal
The Buddha did advise disgust (Bhikkhu Bodhi translation) for evil people. metta.lk's translation is "loathed":
Anguttara Nikaya 3.27 wrote:Bhikkhus, which person should be loathed and not associated. Here a certain person is unvirtuous, with evil thoughts like rubbish, with secret actions, with only a promise to recluseship, festering inside and filth oozing out. Bhikkhus, this kind of person should be loathed, should not be associated. What is the reason? In some way if this person is not imitated, ill fame spreads, 'this is an evil friend, an associate of evil'. Just as a serpent with excreta on its body would not sting anyone, for he smears excreta. In the same manner an unvirtuous person with evil thoughts similar to rubbish, with secret actions, with only a promise to recluseship, festering inside and filth oozing out should be loathed, should not be associated.
From: Jigucchitabbasutta: Should be loathed
With metta / dhammapal.

Re: Does an arahant not feel angry at all?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:09 pm
by Varillon
Perhaps "disgust" isn't being treated as an emotion but a reaction instead. Say you walked in on a friend getting dressed. Though you aren't disgusted by their appearance, you may be reacting to thoughts. "I hope she/he doesn't think I wanted to betray her/his trust." "I hope their significant other doesn't get angry and want revenge." You hide your eyes and attempt to stumble back through the door.

Applied in this way, Buddha could have felt nothing but still projected a reaction of disgust. If he saw a murder and later ran into the murderer, I personally could see Buddha making a bit of a scene while backing away to inspire others that the murderer's deed can't be tolerated.

Namaste

Re: Does an arahant not feel angry at all?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:47 pm
by daverupa
In that context, I'd have rendered "jigucchati" as 'shuns', rather than 'loathes', because it has a better correspondence with 'not associated (with)'.

It is, in short, an attempt to maximize the distance between oneself and unwholesome conditions, as I see it, and not a suggestion that loathing an individual is to be done.