Sadness is a primary emotion along with frustration and distrust - if those are emotions - leading us to be angry. It is said anger is useful, important, and sometimes necessary. I am not here to argue that.
I am here to ADD A POINT about anger relative to reconciliation. For some people and situations it is hoped that reconciliation will occur where there has been a break in a relationship. Breaks often leave people sad and lost and frustrated and out of control and who knows what else... My point is - ANGER DOES NOT SERVE THE HOPE FOR RECONCILIATION.
I think, in fact, the more anger the less possible will be a good reconciliation. I think when some kind of reconciliation may occur the old anger will present itself in various ways... Snide comments. Off-hand recollections of things lost with anger having been the response. Anger is outward directed and once a person has some contact with the "other" even with reconciliation in mind - isn't it likely the anger will want some expression? I imagine so and anger is hurtful.
SADNESS is different and may or may not be brought into a time of reconciliation. Why bring forward sadness and be sad again. Sadness is inner-directed and can lead to suffering but as they say pain is real, suffering is optional. Sadness happens. Suffering can be avoided after some time, short or long. When the pain is no longer being inflicted a person need not feel hurt and sad.
Anger seems different. Anger is said;
“Buddha quote: "Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die."”
OR
Buddha also said;
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned".
These seem true. Someone else may get hurt, too, but if reconciliation is the hope... is it wise to hurt the other?
SO - bottom line -- IF reconciliation is a hope - don't harbor anger in yourself. It will not serve you well now or later.
No comments:
Post a Comment