Saint Basil on anger

 In Proverbs we read the explicit declaration: 'Wrath destroyeth even the prudent,'! and the Apostle admonishes us as follows: 'Let all anger and indignation and clamour be put away from you with all malice.' The Lord, likewise, says that whoever gives way lightly to anger against his brother is in danger of the judgment. Now, when we have had experience with the vice of anger, not as arising within ourselves, but attacking us from without, like a sudden tempest, then, especially, do we perceive the excellence of the divine precept. If we have ever yielded before such anger, as if giving passage to a strongly flowing stream, and have studied calmly the shameful paroxysms which commonly afflict persons who are in the grip of this passion, we have also recognized in actual fact the validity of the saying: 'A wrathful man is not seemly.' Indeed, this vice, when it has once succeeded in banishing reason, itself usurps the dominion over the soul. It makes a man wholly bestial and, in fact, it does not even allow him to be a man, since he no longer has the aid of his reason. The effect of anger upon persons aroused by this passion is like that of the poison in animals who carry venom. They become rabid, like mad dogs; they dart about, like scorpions; they bite, like serpents. The Scripture also recognizes the truth of this and applies the names of wild animals to those who are under the power of any vice; for, by their wickedness, they acquire an affinity with them. Isaias calls them dumb dogs, serpents, a generation of vipers, etc.

Certainly, they who are bent upon mutual destruction and upon doing harm to their fellow men, would be appropriately numbered with wild and poisonous beasts who by nature bear an implacable enmity toward mankind. Anger causes tongues to become unbridled, and speech, unguarded. Physical violence, acts of contumely, reviling, accusations, blows, and other bad effects too numerous to recount are born of anger and indignation. By indignation, also, the sword is sharpened; a human hand dares to take a human life. For this cause, brothers have lost sight of their brotherhood; parents and children have forgotten their natural bond. Angry men become strangers first to themselves, then to all their friends as well. Like mountain torrents which converge their streams in the valleys and sweep along with them everything in their path, the violent and uncontrolled onset of an angry man carries all before it. The wrathful have no respect for old age, nor for a virtuous life, nor ties of kinship, nor favors received in the past, nor for anything else worthy of honor.

Anger is a kind of temporary madness. Its victims often plunge headlong into open peril, so careless of themselves are they in their eagerness for revenge. Stung on all sides, as by a gad-fly, by the recollection of the authors of their wrongs, their wrath struggling and bounding within them, they do not rest until they have inflicted some hurt upon their tormenter, or, perhaps, as sometimes happens, until they themselves receive an injury. For, very often, objects which are broken through violent usage, in as much as they are shattered against resisting bodies, suffer greater injury than they inflict.

Who could adequately describe the evil-how vehement natures, fired with indignation for some trivial cause, shout and rage and leap upon their prey more ruthlessly than a venomous beast? Nor do they leave off until the flame has spent itself and the wrath within them has burst like a bubble in working great and even irremediable harm. Neither the point of the sword, nor fire, nor any means of inspiring fear is able to restrain the spirit frenzied with wrath, any more than such threats subdue persons possessed by the Devil (from whom angry men differ not at all, either in appearance or state of soul). In those who are thirsting for revenge, the blood boils around the heart as if it were seething and bubbling over a high fire. Bursting forth to the surface, his passion reveals the angry man under a different aspect from his habitual one that is well known to all. It is as if a theatrical mask altered his appearance. His friends do not discern in his eyes their characteristic and wonted expression. His glance is wild and presently darts fire. He gnashes his teeth like a charging boar. His face is livid and suffused with blood, his body swells, his veins burst, his breathing is labored because of the tempest raging within. His voice is hoarse and strained, his utterance thick, his words without logic, sequence, order, or meaning. When his anger has, by aggravation, reached the point of uncontrollable fury, like a flame abundantly fed, then, indeed, is the spectacle indescribable and unbearable to witness. His hands are lifted even against his kinsmen. No part of the body is safe. His feet trample ruthlessly upon the most vital organs and every object in sight becomes a weapon for his fury. And if such persons find arrayed against them an adversary who threatens them equally-that is, with another fit of anger and a like frenzy-they close with them, and both sides inflict and suffer as many injuries as the henchmen of so fierce a demon deserve. The combatants then carry off mutilated members as prizes for their wrath; not infrequently, even death results. It had begun with one of the pair unjustly laying violent hands upon the other. The latter then returns the blow and refuses to give way. Their bodies get well pummeled but anger deadens the pain. They have not time to become aware of their injuries, since their whole attention is taken up with wreaking vengeance.

Do not, therefore, endeavor to cure one evil with another and do not try to outdo one another in inflicting 'harm. The victor in unrighteous combats is the more unhappy, for he bears away the greater share of guilt. Do not, then, return evil for evil and do not increase your debt of wickedness by paying it. If someone in a fit of anger has treated you despitefully, bear the wrong in silence. But you, contrariwise, receive into your own heart your adversary's gust of wrath and then you imitate the winds which return by a counter-blast whatever is flung against the direction in which they are blowing. Let not your enemy be your teacher and model. Do not imitate what you hate. Do not become a mirror, as it were, for an angry man by reflecting his image. His face is flushed. Why has not yours turned red? His eyes are suffused with blood. Do you mean to say that yours keep their placid expression?

His voice is hoarse. Surely, yours is not gentle! An echo in the desert is not so perfectly returned to the speaker as insults are turned back upon the reviler. Nay, the sound of an echo comes back the same, but the insult is answered with increase.

Now, what sort of taunts are they which revilers utter back and forth? One calls the other a common fellow of ignoble stock. He, in turn, calls the first a slave of slaves. One says, 'pauper'; the other answers, 'vagabond.' One cries, 'fool'; the other shouts, 'madman'; until, like arrows, their armory of insults is exhausted. Then, when they have used up their stock of verbal abuse, they proceed to fighting it out with blows. Thus, anger stirs up strife, strife begets railing, railing leads to blows, blows to wounds, and from wounds, often enough, death results. Let us, however, check the evil at its source, by making use of every device for expelling anger from our souls. By so doing, we could exterminate most of our vices along with this one, which serves as their root and source. Has someone insulted you? Bless him. Has he struck you? Suffer it. Has he despised you and set you at naught?

Reflect that you are made of earth and that you will return to the earth. Whoever arms himself beforehand with these considerations will find that every insult falls short of the truth. 

Thus will you make it impossible for your enemy to avenge himself, since you show yourself impervious to his taunts.

Further, you will secure for yourself the great crown of patience by making the insane fury of another the occasion for practicing your own philosophy. If you listen to me, therefore, you also will add force to the insults cast at you. If he calls you common, ignoble, a nobody, then call yourself earth and ashes. You are not more worthy of honor than our father, Abraham, and he used to refer to himself in this way. If your enemy says you are an ignoramus, a beggar, a worthless fellow, call yourself in the words of David, 'a worm, born of a dunghill. To these responses, add also Moses' noble conduct. When he was reviled by Aaron and Mary, he did not make accusations against them to God, but prayed for them. Of whose disciples would you rather be-the saints, the friends of God, or men filled with the spirit of iniquity?

Whenever the temptation to revile another assails you, consider that you are being put to the test: whether you will practice patience and go over to God's side or give way to anger and run off to His Adversary. Give your reason the opportunity of choosing the best part. For, either you will confer a kind of favor upon your enemy by giving him an example of mildness, or, by your disdaining to bandy insults with him, you will exact a crueler vengeance. What could be more painful to a hostile man than to see an enemy showing contempt for his insults? Retain your self-possession; be invulnerable to affronts. Let your enemy bark at you to no avail and let his rage burst upon himself. A man who strikes a person who has no feeling takes vengeance upon himself (for he did not succeed in exacting it from his enemy and he found no outlet for his wrath). In the same way, a person who showers abuse upon one who is insensible to his taunts finds himelf powerless to relieve his feelings, and, as I have said, he quite tears himself asunder. Moreover, what are the epithets that are applied to each of you under such circumstances? He is called an abusive fellow; you, a magnanimous one. He is dubbed irritable and rude; you, long-suffering and mild. He will suffer remorse for his words; you will never regret practicing virtue.

Saint Basil from Homily
Against Those Who Are Prone to Anger
SAINT BASIL ASCETICAL WORKS Translated by SISTER M. MONICA WAGNER, C. S. C.

Anger

 

In their desert “cities,” the monks wanted to create a new world. They sought a harmony of human relations free of the greedy grasping that pervaded the towns and villages they had left behind. Some stories gently mock their former world. One tells of two old men who had lived together many years and never fought. One said to the other, “Let's have an argument like other people do.” But the other said, “I don't know how to have an argument.” So the first told him, “Look, I'll put a brick between us. Then I'll say, `That's mine.' Then you say, `No, it's mine.'” So the first monk put the brick between them and started the argument: “That's mine.” The second played his part: “No, it's mine.” The first immediately relented: “Okay, it's yours. Take it.” So the two gave up, unable to argue.35 This quaintly expressed the desert ideal. But the reality was otherwise. Modern readers often imagine that for monks, sexuality posed the great struggle. But ancient sources indicate otherwise. Anger, not sex, figured more prominently.

The challenge was human relations.36 The world the desert fathers had left behind had intricate codes of retribution and vengeance. Augustine tells how such codes even crept into the piety of ordinary urban Christians: “Each day people come to church. They bend their knees, touch the earth with their foreheads, sometimes moistening their faces with tears. And in all this great humility and anguish, they pray: `Lord, avenge me. Kill my enemy.'”37 Although the desert fathers had withdrawn from normal town and village life, they could not as easily abandon its fierce ethic. One story tells of a monk who had been the victim of some injustice. He went to Abba Sisoes and told him that he was going to get his revenge. Sisoes did not deny that the monk had been wronged, but begged him to leave vengeance to God. But the brother was adamant: “I cannot rest until I get vengeance.” So Sisoes told him, “My brother, let's pray.” Raising up his hands, Sisoes prayed, “God, we don't need you. We can avenge ourselves.” The brother heard Sisoes's prayer and fell at the old man's feet and begged forgiveness.38He recognized in that instant that anger and vengeance presupposes a godless world, a world in which the crude violence of human justice replaces the wisdom of God's.

Prominent figures mention their battles with anger. Abba Isidore the Priest once went to market to sell his goods, but when he felt anger overwhelming him, he fled; John the Little dropped his handiwork on the road, furious with some talkative camel driver.39 Abba Ammonas admitted the depth of his struggle: “I have spent fourteen years at Scetis asking God night and day that he give me the grace to conquer anger.”40 Anger sometimes erupted among the monks themselves because of harsh or hurtful remarks. Some monks once saw Abba Achillas spitting blood out of his mouth. When asked about it, Achillas answered, “It was the words of a brother who had hurt me. I fought not to let him know it, and I begged God to take them away from me. And the words became blood in my mouth and I spit it out. Now I am peaceful and have forgotten the hurt.”41 In the Apophthegmata, one finds frequent admonitions against the loose tongue. The desert fathers recognized how easily gossip could rend the fabric of a community. Abba Hyperechius, for instance, compared the whisperings of a gossip to the whisperings of the serpent that drove Eve from Paradise.42And he insisted that it was better to eat meat and drink wine than to feast on a brother's flesh with slander.43 Of course, the desert fathers recognized that one did not always need words to strike out at one's neighbor. As Abba Isaiah once put it, “When someone wants to render evil for evil, he can hurt his brother with a single nod of his head.”44 One tactic was to flee into greater solitude. There is a story of a monk who was often angry and became convinced that the solution was to leave his desert community: “I will go, and live somewhere by myself. And since I shall be able to talk or listen to no one, I shall be tranquil, and my passionate anger will cease.” So he went out further into the desert and took up residence in a cave. One day, he went to fill his terracotta jug with water. When he set it down, it fell over and the water spilled out. He refilled it. Again it fell over. A third time he filled it and a third time it spilled. He went into a rage. He picked up the water jug and flung it down. When it shattered, he came to his senses. He recognized that the battle lay not with others, but with himself. So he packed up his things and returned to his old community.45  The desert fathers recognized that a nonviolent world began with a nonviolent heart. Once a monk asked Abba Poemen how not to repay for evil for evil. Poemen explained that passion—of which anger was one kind—had four levels. First it welled up from the heart; then it flashed into visibility in the face; it might then come to expression in words; finally it played itself out as evil in deeds. So he advised that one get to the root of the problem, the heart, and seek to purify it. But Poemen was a pragmatist. He knew such interior purification was not always possible. And his concern was to stop the last step: evil acts. So he advised that if anger flashes across one's face, don't speak; if one must speak, then cut short the conversation.46 Poemen did not hold to what one hears among talk-show psychologists: that it is best to let it all out, to stand one's ground, and if necessary get in someone's face. For him and the desert fathers, the first step toward a less violent world was silence, biting one's tongue. But the real solution was interior, locating the inner fury in the heart.

In the Apophthegmata, discussion of anger often appears under the heading of self-mastery. But the desert fathers sometimes located the antidote to anger's fury in the virtue of humility. As Graham Gould has noted, they thought of humility as “the capacity to resolve situations of conflict by renouncing your own right to expect reparation or penitence when you have a grievance against someone.”47 This is best summed up in one of the anonymous sayings.
237 When an old man was asked what humility was, he answered: “If you forgive a brother who has wronged you before he is penitent towards you.”48

from the book Desert Christians An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism by William Harmless

Kakacūpama Sutta The Simile of the Saw

 

1. THUS HAVE I HEARD. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.

2. Now on that occasion the venerable Moliya Phagguna was associating overmuch with bhikkhunīs.245 He was associating so much with bhikkhunīs that if any bhikkhu spoke dispraise of those bhikkhunīs in his presence, he would become angry and displeased and would make a case of it; and if any bhikkhu spoke dispraise of the venerable Moliya Phagguna in those bhikkhunīs’ presence, they would become angry and displeased and would make a case of it. So much was the venerable Moliya Phagguna associating with bhikkhunīs.

3. Then a certain bhikkhu went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, he sat down at one side and told the Blessed One what was taking place.

4. Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu thus: “Come, [123] bhikkhu, tell the bhikkhu Moliya Phagguna in my name that the Teacher calls him.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to the venerable Moliya Phagguna and told him: “The Teacher calls you, friend Phagguna.”—“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One asked him:

5. “Phagguna, is it true that you are associating overmuch with bhikkhunīs, that you are associating so much with bhikkhunīs that if any bhikkhu speaks dispraise of those bhikkhunīs in your presence, you become angry and displeased and make a case of it; and if any bhikkhu speaks dispraise of you in those bhikkhunīs’ presence, they become angry and displeased and make a case of it? Are you associating so much with bhikkhunīs, as it seems?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Phagguna, are you not a clansman who has gone forth out of faith from the home life into homelessness?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”

6. “Phagguna, it is not proper for you, a clansman gone forth out of faith from the home life into homelessness, to associate overmuch with bhikkhunīs. Therefore, if anyone speaks dispraise of those bhikkhunīs in your presence, you should abandon any desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train thus: ‘My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no evil words; I shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate.’ That is how you should train, Phagguna.“If anyone gives those bhikkhunīs a blow with his hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife in your presence, you should abandon any desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train thus: ‘My mind will be unaffected…’ If anyone speaks dispraise in your presence, you should abandon any desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train thus: ‘My mind will be unaffected…’ If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife, [124] you should abandon any desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train thus: ‘My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no evil words; I shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate.’ That is how you should train, Phagguna.

7. Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, there was an occasion when the bhikkhus satisfied my mind. Here I addressed the bhikkhus thus: ‘Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from illness and affliction, and I enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so doing, you will be free from illness and affliction, and you will enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding.’ And I had no need to keep on instructing those bhikkhus; I had only to arouse mindfulness in them.246 Suppose there were a chariot on even ground at the crossroads, harnessed to thoroughbreds, waiting with goad lying ready, so that a skilled trainer, a charioteer of horses to be tamed, might mount it, and taking the reins in his left hand and the goad in his right hand, might drive out and back by any road whenever he likes. So too, I had no need to keep on instructing those bhikkhus; I had only to arouse mindfulness in them.

8. “Therefore, bhikkhus, abandon what is unwholesome and devote yourselves to wholesome states, for that is how you will come to growth, increase, and fulfilment in this Dhamma and Discipline. Suppose there were a big sāla-tree grove near a village or town, and it was choked with castor-oil weeds, and some man would appear desiring its good, welfare, and protection. He would cut down and throw out the crooked saplings that robbed the sap, and he would clean up the interior of the grove and tend the straight well-formed saplings, so that the sāla-tree grove later on would come to growth, increase, and fulfilment. So too, bhikkhus, abandon what is unwholesome and devote yourselves to wholesome states, [125] for that is how you will come to growth, increase, and fulfilment in this Dhamma and Discipline.

9. “Formerly, bhikkhus, in this same Sāvatthī there was a housewife named Vedehikā. And a good report about Mistress Vedehikā had spread thus: ‘MistressVedehikā is gentle, Mistress Vedehikā is meek, Mistress Vedehikā is peaceful.’ Now Mistress Vedehikā had a maid named Kālī, who was clever, nimble, and neat in her work. The maid Kālī thought: ‘A good report about my lady has spread thus: “Mistress Vedehikā is gentle, Mistress Vedehikā is meek, Mistress Vedehikā is peaceful.” How is it now, while she does not show anger, is it nevertheless actually present in her or is it absent? Or else is it just because my work is neat that my lady shows no anger though it is actually present in her? Suppose I test my lady.’“So the maid Kālī got up late. Then Mistress Vedehikā said: ‘Hey, Kālī!′—′What is it, madam?’—‘What is the matter that you get up so late?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up so late!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she scowled. Then the maid Kālī thought: ‘The fact is that while my lady does not show anger, it is actually present in her, not absent; and it is just because my work is neat that my lady shows no anger though it is actually present in her, not absent. Suppose I test my lady a little more.’“So the maid Kālī got up later in the day. Then Mistress Vedehikā said: ‘Hey, Kālī!′—′What is it, madam?’—‘What is the matter that you get up later in the day?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up later in the day!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she spoke words of displeasure. Then the maid Kālī thought: ‘The fact is that while my lady does not show anger, it is actually present in her, not absent; and it is just because my work is neat that my lady shows no anger though it is actually present in her, not absent. Suppose I test my lady a little more.’“So the maid Kālī got up still later in the day. Then Mistress Vedehikā [126] said: ‘Hey, Kālī!′—′What is it, madam?’—‘What is the matter that you get up still later in the day?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up still later in the day!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she took a rolling-pin, gave her a blow on the head, and cut her head.“Then the maid Kālī, with blood running from her cut head, denounced her mistress to the neighbours: ‘See, ladies, the gentle lady’s work! See, ladies, the meek lady’s work! See, ladies, the peaceful lady’s work! How can she become angry and displeased with her only maid for getting up late? How can she take a rolling-pin, give her a blow on the head, and cut her head?’ Then later on a bad report about Mistress Vedehikā spread thus: ‘Mistress Vedehikā is rough, Mistress Vedehikā is violent, Mistress Vedehikā is merciless.’

10. “So too, bhikkhus, some bhikkhu is extremely gentle, extremely meek, extremely peaceful, so long as disagreeable courses of speech do not touch him. But it is when disagreeable courses of speech touch him that it can be understood whether that bhikkhu is really kind, gentle, and peaceful. I do not call a bhikkhu easy to admonish who is easy to admonish and makes himself easy to admonish only for the sake of getting robes, almsfood, a resting place, and medicinal requisites. Why is that? Because that bhikkhu is not easy to admonish nor makes himself easy to admonish when he gets no robes, almsfood, resting place, and medicinal requisites. But when a bhikkhu is easy to admonish and makes himself easy to admonish because he honours, respects, and reveres the Dhamma, him I call easy to admonish. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘We shall be easy to admonish and make ourselves easy to admonish because we honour, respect, and revere the Dhamma.’ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

11. “Bhikkhus, there are these five courses of speech that others may use when they address you: their speech may be timely or untimely, true or untrue, gentle or harsh, connected with good or with harm, spoken with a mind of loving-kindness or with inner hate. When others address you, their speech may be timely or untimely; when others address you, their speech may be true or untrue; when others address you, their speech may be gentle or harsh; when others address you, their speech may be connected with good [127] or with harm; when others address you, their speech may be spoken with a mind of loving-kindness or with inner hate. Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no evil words; we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate. We shall abide pervading that person with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, and starting with him,247 we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.’ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

12. “Bhikkhus, suppose a man came with a hoe and a basket and said: ‘I shall make this great earth to be without earth.’ He would dig here and there, strew the soil here and there, spit here and there, and urinate here and there, saying: ‘Be without earth, be without earth!’ What do you think, bhikkhus? Could that man make this great earth to be without earth?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because this great earth is deep and immeasurable; it is not easy to make it be without earth. Eventually the man would reap only weariness and disappointment.”

13. “So too, bhikkhus, there are these five courses of speech… (as in §11)…Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected…and starting with him, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind similar to the earth, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.’ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

14. “Bhikkhus, suppose a man came with crimson, turmeric, indigo, or carmine and said: ‘I shall draw pictures and make pictures appear on empty space.’ What do you think, bhikkhus? Could that man draw pictures and make pictures appear on empty space?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because empty space is formless and non-manifestive; it is not easy to draw pictures there or make pictures appear there. [128] Eventually the man would reap only weariness and disappointment.”

15. “So too, bhikkhus, there are these five courses of speech…Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected…and starting with him, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind similar to empty space, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.’ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

16. “Bhikkhus, suppose a man came with a blazing grass-torch and said: ‘I shall heat up and burn away the river Ganges with this blazing grass-torch.’ What do you think, bhikkhus? Could that man heat up and burn away the river Ganges with that blazing grass-torch?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because the river Ganges is deep and immense; it is not easy to heat it up or burn it away with a blazing grass-torch. Eventually the man would reap only weariness and disappointment.”

17. “So too, bhikkhus, there are these five courses of speech…Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected…and starting with him, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind similar to the river Ganges, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.′ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

18. “Bhikkhus, suppose there were a catskin bag that was rubbed, well rubbed, thoroughly well rubbed, soft, silky, rid of rustling, rid of crackling, and a man came with a stick or a potsherd and said: ‘There is this catskin bag that is rubbed…rid of rustling, rid of crackling. I shall make it rustle and crackle.’ What do you think, bhikkhus? Could that man make it rustle or crackle with the stick or the potsherd?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because that catskin bag being rubbed…rid of rustling, rid of crackling, it is not easy to make it rustle or crackle with the stick or the potsherd. Eventually the man would reap only weariness and disappointment.”

19. “So too, bhikkhus, there are these five courses of speech that others may use when they address you: their speech may be timely [129] or untimely, true or untrue, gentle or harsh, connected with good or with harm, spoken with a mind of loving-kindness or with inner hate. When others address you, their speech may be timely or untimely; when others address you, their speech may be true or untrue; when others address you, their speech may be gentle or harsh; when others address you, their speech may be connected with good or with harm; when others address you, their speech may be spoken with a mind of loving-kindness or with inner hate. Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no evil words; we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate. We shall abide pervading that person with a mind imbued with loving-kindness; and starting with him, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind similar to a catskin bag, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.’ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

20. “Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching. Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no evil words; we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate. We shall abide pervading them with a mind imbued with loving-kindness; and starting with them, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.’ That is how you should train, bhikkhus.

21. “Bhikkhus, if you keep this advice on the simile of the saw constantly in mind, do you see any course of speech, trivial or gross, that you could not endure?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Therefore, bhikkhus, you should keep this advice on the simile of the saw constantly in mind. That will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.”

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.

Dissolving Illusions Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History

 In their meticulously researched book, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Mr. Roman Bystrianyk take you right back to the roots of disease and the connection between living conditions, nutrition, and health.

They systematically piece together the information you need to pierce the myth that vaccination is what saved us from the infective scourges of the past. More worryingly, they also show how vaccines may be instrumental in creating a many-headed hydra of overt and covert disease, which is hardly recognised, barely understood, and may well be of immense consequence to our children and future generations.

With all this information there, waiting to be found, why don’t more doctors go and look for it?

Why do doctors not even entertain the possibility that the Universal Childhood Vaccination Program may not be the unmitigated success that it is portrayed to be?

Why do doctors not even consider that there may be other ways of achieving health that are better and longer lasting?

In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to independent research and thinking is the professional consequence of stepping out of line and being seen to be different—as I know to my cost. As George Bernard Shaw says in his preface to “The Doctor's Dilemma” 1906:

Doctors are just like other Englishmen: most of them have no honour and no conscience: what they commonly mistake for these is sentimentality and an intense dread of doing anything that everybody else does not do, or omitting to do anything that everybody else does.

So next time you are in your doctor’s office and you say, “I’m worried about the safety of vaccination,” and you are told, “You don’t understand, you’re not a doctor…” remember that, if you are a doctor and say, “I’m worried about the safety of vaccination,” you will be told, “We’re charging you with serious professional misconduct…”

Dr. Jayne L. M. Donegan, MBBS, DRCOG, DFFP, DCH, MRCGP, MFHom

Forward & introduction to The Unvaccinated Child: A Treatment Guide for Parents and Caregivers

 Forward

You have in your hands a compendium of brilliance for raising healthy, strong, bright-eyed children. I wish to congratulate Dr. Judith Thompson, ND and Dr. Eli Camp, ND, DHANP, for writing this much-needed resource for families.

There is no need to poison our children’s blood streams with toxins in the name of “prevention” when the real prevention to illness is a healthy immune system. As we are exposed to more bacteria and viruses our immune system strengthens with the experience of the previous encounter. This will then allow us to fend off chronic illnesses, degenerative diseases and cancer as we age. We do a disservice to our children if we do not allow their immune systems to encounter the common infectious diseases of the human race.

Infectious diseases are regularly treated and healed using natural principles such as fasting a fever, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, herbal medicine and other methods that support the body’s wisdom. Over the last 30 years as a practicing naturopath and as a daughter of a naturopath, I have treated or have seen treated, thousands of children (and adults) that have developed these contagious diseases. The sickest of these folks are routinely the ones who had the full schedule of immunizations. Even with the most severe cases of measles or pertussis, by using these basic principles of health and healing as outlined in this text, the children have healed quickly and without harm or lasting effects.

If you have vaccinated your child, you will still want to have this information at hand. If your child becomes ill you will have a starting place to begin supporting the natural healing process which is what will heal the illness no matter what approach you take. All medicine only works to cure an illness if it supports the body in bringing the metabolic function to a higher level. If the approach given to the child is suppressive, then the condition of the body’s health can only worsen. We CAN treat contagious diseases with gentle medicine that is strong, fast-acting and uncomplicated. So, let us strive to nurture the vitality of the child’s body, strengthen the circulation and digestion, empower the immune system and, in doing so, let us all raise healthy children.

Dr. Letitia Dick-Kronenberg, ND

INTRODUCTION

When we were first in practice, the number of parents who told us they did not want to vaccinate their children was low. They didn’t want anyone to know they weren’t vaccinating, but, they desperately wanted and needed medical support in order to know they were doing the right things to keep their children healthy. They suffered in silence, not telling friends, family members or medical providers that they had chosen to do something different than the conventional standard of care. Fearing ostracization from their families and communities, they didn’t know that more parents were slowly making the same decision and quietly coming to us for help.

Over the years, the numbers of parents looking for information—statistics, risk factors and overall support—has grown exponentially.1 They are becoming more aware of potential risks and want to minimize them by proactively and naturally maintaining their children’s health. As naturopathic doctors, we are trained in optimizing health regardless of vaccination status, and are therefore their ideal health care practitioners. These parents feel safe and confident with the information we provide. They trust us because they know we have education in nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, immune system development, physiology and children’s health.2Since many of these conditions are not as prevalent as they used to be, parents’ and caregivers’ ability to restore health when faced with these diseases has been lost. Neither parents nor medical providers are aware that these conditions can easily be managed through natural means. Our intent is to provide education and resources for parents who have decided it is best for their family not to vaccinate their children.

A Note to Parents That Have Vaccinated Their Children

If your child has had some injections and not others, this book can still be a helpful guide, especially those sections that discuss how to support your child’s immune system through specific illnesses. If your child is in full compliance with the current vaccination schedule, they too can benefit from this book, since statistics show that children in full compliance have the highest rates of actual illness.3 Whether a child is not vaccinated, partly vaccinated or fully vaccinated, this book provides parents the information to keep children in the best health possible.

A Note on Methodology

The statistical and disease presentation information in this book comes from public information readily available through public health organizations such as the National Institutes for Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as medical texts and journals from the US National Library of Medicine. Treatment guidelines come from interviews with doctors that have been in practice over thirty years (some have over forty or fifty years of practice experience or were mentored by doctors that were in practice in the mid-20th century when these conditions were commonly seen).

We have also consulted research from new publications about the effectiveness of vitamins, minerals, herbs, homeopathic remedies and other natural therapies, as well as reviews of older literature available from doctors that were treating these conditions at the time when they were most prevalent, i.e. before vaccinations were available. Some of the treatments discussed are from Eclectic doctors, doctors from the late 19th and early 20th century who used herbs, homeopathic remedies and minerals to help the body heal.

By compiling information from different sources including books, medical journals, public health records, medical professionals and historical documents, we aim to bring all available information together to assist parents and caregivers in working with these conditions, and to include as many of the natural therapeutics known to re-establish health.

Finally, a number of the protocols discussed come directly from our clinical practices, working with hundreds of children using vitalistic naturopathic modalities of healing.

1As of the writing of this book, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has changed how they distribute this type of information. Whereas they used to give numbers of diagnosed contagious diseases, they now only give percentages on their front pages. (This is concerning because in the cases of some contagious disease that have very low numbers. For example, rubella with less than 10 cases per year, a 100% increase would mean 10 more people in the country were diagnosed with it but that type of percentage can scare the public into accepting mandatory vaccinations.) Currently, much statistical data is either unavailable or buried within public records.

2For clarity, when the word “we” is mentioned in the book, it refers to the authors of the book.

3Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “2015 Final Pertussis Surveillance Report”. https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/downloads/pertuss-surv-report-2015.pdf (accessed Feb 15, 2017)

Hermits and the New Monasticism A Study of Religious Communities in Western Europe 1000–1150 by Henrietta Leyser - introduction

 

the whole world a hermitage Damian, Vita Romualdi

TALKING about hermits provokes mirth; if you do not believe this, try working on hermits and keeping a goat. Like goats, hermits are usually seen as wayward and smelly -just occasionally as romantic but definitely as fringe creatures and in some sense failures, ekeing out their existence on some unpromising patch of scrub. To quote a recent review in the Times Literary Supplement 'the hermit's life, like chicken farming seems to have provided one of the refuges for the human wreckage caused by the first world war'. 1 The perspective of the middle ages was different. Hermits were to be found on the very highest rung of the ladder of perfection. Abbots, kings and emperors would seek their advice. Because it was so exacting a life only those of proven calibre were encouraged to take it up.

The eleventh and twelfth centuries saw a dramatic change: 'it seemed as if the whole world would be turned into a hermitage'. 2 Hermits were everywhere, on every rostrum. They came from all walks of life. Robbers gave up their lives of pillage to become hermits; monks left their communities and masters their schools. Why was this so? First of all, as we shall see, there is a semantic problem. Much confusion could have been avoided if these new hermits of the eleventh and twelfth centuries had presumed to call themselves 'holy men'. Hermits, traditionally, withdraw in ones or twos from the world:

Living a sane and gentle life in a forest nook or a hill pocket Perpetuating their kind and their kindness, keeping Their hands clean and their eyes keen, at one with Themselves, each other and nature.3

They are not expected to try to reform the world, to become wandering preachers, to take upon themselves the care of lepers, prostitutes, the sick and the poor, to proclaim by word and deed that most existing ecclesiastical institutions were at worst rotten, at best inadequate. But this is what the new hermits of the eleventh and twelfth centuries did and throughout Europe they founded communities where they could, in their sense, live perfectly.

Everyone can recognise, in parlour-game terms, 'what the consequence was'. Cluniac monasteries were now challenged by communities proclaiming quite different values and observances.

Monastic historians following Ordericus Vitalis have described how 'monasteries are founded everywhere ... observing new rites ... the swarm of cow led monks spreads all over the world'. 4 In the unforgettable words of David Knowles 'the single traditional version of the monastic life [was split] into twenty different divisions, as it were the colours of the spectrum'. 5 Bitter arguments broke out as to which way of life was best, whose profession the most authentic.

The end of the story, in a sense, came with the pronouncement of the Lateran Council of 1215 forbidding any further new orders, but it is with the beginnings of these developments that we are concerned here. For in most accounts there is a hiatus, a passing over of the crucial years between the first meeting of any hermits (in a forest or a 'desert', clad in scruffy clothes) and the founding of their communities. The improbability that such a meeting of 'marginal' and traditionally solitary figures could lead to such momentous, central monastic changes is felt to be so great, even ludicrous, that barely any attempt has been made to spell out what 'he said to him', or, as was sometimes the case 'to her'. There is, in short, a failure to connect. Hermits and monks are still kept in separate, quite artificial compartments. They are even seen as diametrical figures. Here is a recent example. Brenda Bolton, following Christopher Brooke, writes: 'the hermit life was revived in a world in which its opposite, the communal mode of life, flourished as never before'. 6 For both writers it is the Carthusians who seem to span the poles: but for the eleventh and twelfth centuries this contrast between the eremitical and the communal life is false. Certainly, as we shall see, there were still solitaries - these I have called 'traditional hermits' -but there were also 'new hermits' for whom solitude had an entirely different meaning. These hermits were the parents of the new orders, of the Cistercians just as much as of the Carthusians, of the Vallombrosans and the Premonstratensians, just as much as of the more isolated Camaldolensians. They saw themselves as hermits and the Lives and Rules of their communities describe the ways in which they chose to live 'eremitically'. A hermit was no longer a solitary figure in a hut or cave; he belonged, in every sense of the word, to a group of pioneers, to 'Ie takeoff7 of the twelfth century. Ordericus knew this too. In the course of describing the peace Henry I had brought to England he continues: 'hermits can add their testimony, for they cut down dense woods and now give praise in the high-roofed monasteries and spiritual palaces built there chanting glory to God with peace of mind where formerly robbers and outlaws used to hide to perform their evil deeds'. 8

How the hermits became monks and canons will be considered later; the fundamental question must be 'Why?' According to one school of thought it was because they had no choice: hermits were utopians, utopians never survive, sooner or later they have to face either extermination or assimilation. Another closely related argument is this: the hermits were led at first by men of great charisma, but because of the huge size of their followings charisma was replaced by institutions. The hermits adopted rules and orders because they had to, but this transition was also an act of treason. By becoming monks and canons the hermits were admitting to compromise and failure.

There can be no doubt that there are details in these arguments which must be accepted. At first, the hermits did obey leaders, not rules. Then, 'small is beautiful' -for any community success creates problems. Here, as an example, is the weary lament of a twelfth-century prior whose house had once contained only seven brethren: 'the number of the religious grows, and at the same time trouble increases; being a large number they need many goods, and many goods not only cause discord between religious and seculars, but also among religious themselves .... what was before given freely, must now be bought, and the property that was peacefully owned can now scarcely be kept without a lawsuit'. 9 It is clear that the hermits themselves were often far from pleased with the outcome of their ventures; they might even leave their first foundations and try again. But the point that must be made is this: the unwieldly size of many hermitages caused problems, but not rules. Rules to the hermits were not a sign of failure, but 'structures for .... piety',10 the embodiment of their ideals.

The renaissance of the twelfth century was (among other things) a search for new forms. Giles Constable has shown how its vocabulary reflects this preoccupation: recreate, remake, restore, repair, regenerate, reflower, rekindle, revive, resuscitate, these are only some of the words that continually occur. 'Behold matter', wrote Bernard Silvester, 'the oldest thing [in creation], wishes to be born again and in this new beginning to be encompassed in forms.'11 By the end of the century, according to Constable, there had been a shift from 'what may be called a backward-looking to a forward-looking ideology of reform'12 The 'forward-looking' ideology will lead to apocalyptic schools of thought, the 'backward-looking' school takes us straight to the hermits. It was their yearning for models from Scripture and the early Fathers which shaped and moulded their lives, which gave urgency to their search for rules. 

The cry for a return to the perfection of earlier norms can be heard persistently from the time of Romuald's wanderings in Spain and Italy through to the heyday of Cistercianism: 'to put all in brief no perfection expressed in the words of the Gospel, or of the apostles, or in the writings of the Fathers, or in the saying of the monks of old is wanting to our order and our way of life'. 13 The Cistercians' rule must be the most thumbed of all the statutes to which the hermit-movement gave birth. The organisation it set up has been described by Richard Southern as 'a masterpiece of medieval planning', successful, partly, because of its attention to detail; 'pigs', for example, 'though they wander by day must return to the styes at night'. 14 One is reminded of the similar efficiency shown by William I in the compiling of Domesday: 'there was not. ... -it is shameful to record it, but it did not seem shameful for him to do it -not even one ox, nor one cow, nor one pig which escaped notice in his survey'. 15 This is not fortuitous. One of the characteristics of the eleventh and twelfth centuries was this new respect for the written word, for the value of legal precision and codification; the great achievement of the hermits and their followers was the ability to combine this legalism, this concern with outward forms, with an equally intense scrutiny of inner feeling.

The search for new forms of monasticism is always, as M. Seguy has said, the search for a new society. This is no place -to examine the fundamental changes, social and economic, of twelfth-century Europe. On the other hand it was precisely these developments which dictated the pace and direction of the spiritual 'renewing of structures'.16 It was economic expansion and social change which made the hermit movement both possible and necessary.

From the mid-eleventh century Europe was free from external attack. The pagan invaders of the tenth century had in turn been repelled and converted. But the relative peace that was to follow brought its own turmoil, more devastating, more irreparable, than the sporadic acts of pillage. The tenth century had known a certain grim security. Communities were small, self-contained, purposeful. What mattered was survival, either in this world or the next, but this was a struggle that was shared and reliably supported on many levels, by the company of saints and kinsmen and of monks at prayer. The eleventh century brought changes which shattered this pattern of existence. They have been much discussed: the great increase in population, improved agricultural techniques, rural dislocation, the growth of towns and the schools and, above all, the spread of a money economy:

Money! He's the whole world's master
His the voice that makes men run:
Speak! Be quiet! Slower! Faster!
Money orders -and it's done. 17

The hermit movement has sometimes been seen as a simple turning away from these new developments, as a 'rejection of both the new cities and the old monasteries'. 18 Certainly it is true that the hermits hated both cities and money, conversely that they wanted to live as poor men in the 'desert'. But the movement should not be seen in this purely negative fashion. The 'desert' was not a sandy place where the hermits could bury their heads; they went there, as had their Lord, to 'find themselves', to consider how to meet the new challenge, how to find a form of living that would be appropriate, as Cluniac monasticism no longer was, to their circumstances and their aspirations.

The desert, as Isaiah had seen it, was 'the place of future renewal': 'the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose, It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice even with joy and singing' (Isaiah xxxv, 1-2). Gregorian reform, according to Janet Nelson: '[by] involving a new degree of religious differentiation within the wider social system, and a revaluation of religious commitments for all adherents was the answer to newly-felt demands' .19 In support, she cites Anselm and Damian. Anselm, as we know from his Life, seriously considered becoming a hermit, Peter Damian was the great propagator of the movement. This is no coincidence. There can be no doubt that it was above all the hermits in the eleventh and twelfth centuries who were asking not just for themselves but for all Western Christendom, 'what good must I do to win eternal life?' For too long the answers of key figures have dominated historical thinking: the answers, however controversial, of Gregory VII himself, of St Bernard, of Abelard. It is time to see what answers the hermits gave and how deeply their response permeates all the new religious structures of the eleventh and twelfth century. But first we must look at the traditional background from which the hermits stepped.

l. Richard Cobb, Times Literary Supplement, 25 December 1981, p. 1483.
2. Peter Damian, Vita Romualdi, G. Tabacco (ed.), Fonti per la stona d'Itaiza, XCIV (Rome, 1957), Ch. 37, p. 78.
3. Louis MacNeice, The Dark Tower (London, 1964), p. 35.
4. Ordericus Vitalis, Histona Eccleslastica, M. Chibnall (ed.), Nelson's Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1973), Bk. VIII, Ch. 26, p. 310.
5. D. Knowles, From Pachomius to Ignatius, A Study in the Constitutional History of the Religious Orders (Oxford, 1966), p. 16.
6. Brenda Bolton, The Medieval Reformation, Foundations in Medieval History (London, 1983), p. 36. Cf. C. Brooke, The Monastic World (London, 1974), p. 80.
7. The phrase is Le Goff's, cited in P. Brown, 'Society and the Supernatural: A Medieval Change', Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, (London, 1982), p. 302, n. 1.
8. Ordericus Vitalis, Bk. X, pp. 295-6.
9. H. Peltier, 'Hugues de Fouilloy chanoine regulier, prieur de Saint-Laurent-au-Bois', Revue du moyen age latin, II (1946), 32.
10. Caroline Walker Bynum, 'Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Individual?', Journal of EccleSiastical History, XXXI (1980), 16.
11. Cited by Gerhart B. Ladner, 'Terms and Ideas of Renewal', Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, R. Benson and Giles Constable (eds) (Oxford, 1982), p.6.
12. Giles Constable, 'Renewal and Reform in Religious Life', Renaissance and Renewal, pp. 38-9.
13. Ailred of Rievaulx, cited in D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, 943-1216 (Cambridge, 1949), p. 221.
14. R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, Pelican History of the Church, 2 (Harmondsworth, 1970), pp. 255-6.
15. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1085, G. N. Garmonsway (ed.), Everyman edn (London, 1953), p. 216.
16. G. Duby, La Vita commune del clero nei secoli XI e XII, Miscellanea del Centro di studi medioevali III (1962), p. 73.
17. Cited in A. Murray, Reason and Society in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1978), p. 73.
18. Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (London, 1978), p. 70.
19. Janet Nelson, 'Society, Theodicy and the origins of Heresy', SCH, IX (1972),73.

from the book Hermits and the New Monasticism A Study of Religious Communities in Western Europe 1000–1150 by Henrietta Leyser

A controversy with Albert Camus in 1945 ...

 A controversy with Albert Camus in 1945 is still memorable. Camus, who had been active in the Resistance and was unable to get over the execution of some of his closest friends and fellow combatants, took a hard line during the early postwar “purges” (in Combat, the newspaper he edited at the time). One argument concerned the writer Robert Brasillach, who had worked for the Paris collaboration newspaper Je suis partout, which specialized in denun­ ciations. Mauriac, among others, had pleaded—unsuccessfully—that the death sentence should be commuted. Albert Camus later came to the conclusion that his own hard vindictive line had not been justified; he publicly declared that Mauriac had been in the right on that occasion. This self-criticism was also voiced in Camus’ last novel, La Chute. Camus had had the vision of “a France purged clean” and had later seen this to be an illusion. It may be attributable to Mauriac’s Catholic upbringing and mentality that he never believed in a “new-born” society in this sense; on the other hand, the kind of self-criticism practiced by Camus is hardly conceivable in Mauriac.

F. Bondy European Notebooks