The *feeling* of anger must not be *denied* or *repressed* when it arises in oneself, because if one tried to do so one would fail, and eventually explode with anger or tend to engage in some other unwholesome activity as a release.
But, as per the Buddha's recommendations, we should, to the best of our abilities, *refrain* from *espressing* anger or *emoting* on it, as that would add fuel to the fire as well as reinforce our angry tendencies. Of course there are exceptions. For instance a human animal mother or a non-human animal mother will often fight like a tigress to protect her young. This behavior is an instantiation of the following evolutionary psychological premise: We have the ability and tendency to anger because human animals and non-human animals have evolved with traits that enable them to be more successful in attaining the intrinsic goals of all living things, namely: Eat, survive, feel good, prosper, reproduce - and 'appropriate' anger can aid in the achievement of these goals. If we accept this premise, then our attitude toward anger would be much less critical. One the other hand, if our *goal* is to attain a better rebirth or to realize buddha nature, then our attitude toward anger may have to be much less tolerant. --ED --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > Could anyone tell me what is the difference between refraining and repressing anger. > Mayka
