# Anger, envy and a sense of unfairness ## Epigraph > “Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world.” > > Dhammapada, verse 5, brief excerpt from Acharya Buddharakkhita's English translation. This Buddhist orientation does not require forgiving someone or calling what happened fair. ## About this article A friend sends holiday pictures while you face another examination. You may wish them a good trip while feeling envy, anger at illness and shame about your reaction. A specific injustice may also be present: an inaccessible entrance, failed assistance or a humiliating response. “You need to accept it” merges different matters and leaves no address for action. Here we distinguish a feeling, what it brings to attention, an assessment and an action. A feeling establishes neither a diagnosis nor a bad person; it also gives no permission to harm. This article prescribes no stages, forgiveness or clinical calming technique. It seeks a more precise conversation and possible support while leaving room not to be grateful for illness. Examples are illustrative. Nobody must recognise their experience in them or carry out a practice when actual safety and help matter more. ## I. A feeling and an action are not the same event “I am angry” and “I may shout at you” are different statements. One describes an experience; the other tries to establish a rule for a relationship. Illness can make a day difficult without requiring someone close to tolerate threats. Equally, asking someone not to humiliate another person does not prohibit anger. Between silence and harm, there can be room to name what is happening, stop an argument, ask for help or delay a response when that is actually possible. The distinction matters for envy too. Seeing another person's opportunity and painfully remembering a loss is different from wishing them to lose it. You may not want to read a travel account today without wishing a friend harm. “Could we discuss this another day?” need not include a confession of insufficient generosity. A feeling is not obliged to be convenient for a listener. An action has consequences for other people. A useful conversation therefore ends neither with “I am entitled to anything because I suffer” nor a demand to stop feeling immediately. It seeks a form in which the experience can be expressed without turning another person into a target. ## II. One word can contain different questions “Unfair” sometimes means: why did this illness happen to me? Sometimes it means: why was another meeting arranged in an inaccessible place? In the first question, there may be nobody capable of reversing the event. In the second, an organiser's decision can be queried or challenged. Answering both with an appeal to inner calm leaves the external barrier in place. Ask what happened, what is missing and whether a particular person's or organisation's action is involved. The answer need not be clear at once. Several things can coincide: pain, waiting for a result, poor sleep and rudeness. This article cannot establish a medical cause of irritability or explain every bodily change through emotion. A named need does not become an automatic command either. “I need rest” communicates an important condition. If ongoing assistance is required, who can do what still needs agreement. “I need everything to go badly for you too” is not the only expression of loss. Precision can distinguish missing rest, company or choice from a wish to punish the nearest available person. ## III. Aristotle distinguishes feelings, but his judgement is not adopted wholesale In Rhetoric II, Aristotle distinguishes indignation at undeserved prosperity from envy of an equal's prosperity. This is analysis for an orator influencing an audience's judgement, not clinical classification. The text contains harsh moral judgements of envy and a social hierarchy. These are not used to judge an ill person by one reaction. The question of difference is useful. Do I believe someone broke a rule? Am I hurting because they can do what I have lost? Or am I afraid their decision will remove necessary assistance? These are not identical. Sometimes “envy” shuts down a justified complaint: someone requests access and is told they envy healthy people. Sometimes “fairness” conceals a wish to take away a friend's pleasure for which the friend bears no blame. Distinguishing these does not yield an unquestionable moral verdict. Facts may be mistaken, another person's conditions unknown, and feelings mixed. But it becomes possible to examine an intended action against the actual situation. Not every experience needs to become a public accusation; not every complaint should be cancelled by naming an emotion. ## IV. A Buddhist refusal of hatred is not a refusal of protection Verses 3–5 of the Dhammapada contrast rehearsing a grievance with the ending of hatred. This is Buddhist guidance on ending hostility, not a claim that no harm occurred. Here anger as an experience, a hostile act and a protective decision are distinguished rather than merged under one label. Someone can reject revenge and still complain, end a humiliating conversation, change a helper where possible or seek a safe exit. Declining retaliatory humiliation does not require returning to danger. Forgiveness, reconciliation, trust and continued contact differ too. They cannot be demanded as a package from someone needing assistance. An ancient line can easily become an observer's weapon: “If you are still angry, you are sustaining your own suffering.” That conclusion is rejected here. Unequal power, dependence on care and inaccessible surroundings do not disappear through good intentions. The direction of action can be discussed without setting a deadline for a feeling to end. A person need not become calm before their report of harm matters. ## V. Envy can point to something valued without prescribing one solution A friend describes spontaneously visiting someone. The pain may concern lost spontaneity rather than a particular journey: every outing now requires arrangements. Naming this changes the conversation. Instead of debating whether a friend has a right to enjoy life, someone can describe missing the ability to decide without extensive preparation. That does not establish an equivalent accessible substitute. A short visit at home can be enjoyable while failing to replace travel. A timetable change cannot be promised to restore freedom. A valued part can be sought without declaring the whole loss repaired. Nothing need be sought for now if proposed substitutes merely add fatigue. Someone else's wellbeing need not be false for your difficulty to be real. There is no need to imagine that their unseen life must be miserable. Two truths can remain together: they are enjoying something, and an unavailable possibility hurts you. This difficult coexistence is not itself an act against them. A right to limit incoming news temporarily is not a right to govern another person's entire life. ## VI. Other people should not demand an attractive response In her personal essay, Stella Young challenges a duty for disabled people to inspire others and maintain the right mood. Her testimony is not universal, but it helps reveal the cost of being a “good patient” or “strong person” every minute. Anger does not cancel dignity. A supportive response might be: “I hear that this is difficult. Would you like me to listen, help with a specific task, or leave this conversation for now?” This is neither a universal script nor a promise that the listener can do everything. What matters is not turning someone into an object to fix or requiring gratitude for every attempt at help. A listener may also say: “I can listen for ten minutes, but I cannot stay in a conversation with threats.” This limits behaviour rather than permission to feel. When assistance is essential, ending a difficult conversation must not disguise abandoning sole care without a handover. Accepted roles and actual provision matter; a polite sentence alone has not organised support. ## VII. Support can be sought before a breaking point NHS information notes that anger is common, can affect behaviour and warrants seeking help when coping is difficult or self-help is not working. This is public information, not diagnosis from a feeling. Its lists of exercise and calming approaches are not transferred as prescriptions for every illness. Someone can tell an available professional what changed, when it happens, how communication is affected and what worries them. Bodily symptoms and changes in treatment or sleep matter too; this article cannot determine their relationship to anger. Help does not require first becoming an easy conversational partner. A communication format or help with one contact can be chosen in advance. An immediate threat of harm to oneself or another requires appropriate urgent help and actual safety rather than the practice below. No home crisis plan is prescribed here. Lack of money, transport or accessible appointments is a real gap that can be described to an existing team. We do not promise a suitable free substitute will necessarily be found, or explain unsuccessful access through weak willpower. ## VIII. A small action need not close “Why me?” Someone can write to an organiser about access and remain angry at illness. They can ask a friend to postpone updates and still envy their freedom. Emotional purity need not be the result of a limited action. What matters is a clearer need, a named boundary or a support contact actually accepting an enquiry. Not every experience contains a hidden lesson. Illness need not make someone wiser; unfairness need not prepare a future calling. Sometimes an honest answer remains: I do not know why this happened, I dislike it, and today transport to an examination needs arranging. That is enough substance for a human conversation. Anger may leave, stay, return or change into another feeling. This is not a spiritual advancement schedule. Responsibility for action can remain without an obligation to control every emerging experience. Between complete power over feelings and complete helplessness are specific choices constrained by health, resources and relationships. Those can be discussed without promising that one right action will make everything fair. ## What this means in practice When things are sufficiently settled for reflection, choose one episode. Do not require this during a threat or especially difficult condition. 1. Name the feeling without judging a whole person: “I am angry”, “I feel envy”, “Comparison hurts.” More than one may apply. 2. Separately name the fact, need and intended action. What is known, what is missing and what are you about to do? 3. Check the address: did a friend cause harm, did an organisation make an inaccessible decision, or is there nobody who can undo the event? Unknowns may stay unknown. 4. Choose a safe limited response: postponing a topic, asking about a service's conditions, speaking with a chosen person or seeking professional support. Writing, purchases and a family helper are not prerequisites. 5. Check the result through action: was a request accepted, a boundary understood, support made available? If not, the need remains. Disappearance of a feeling need not be demonstrated. This is an editorial aid to a clearer conversation, not anger treatment or a duty to forgive. ## Key quotation > “The Emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements…” > > Aristotle, Rhetoric II.1, W. Rhys Roberts translation, opening fragment of the definition. The source then considers an orator's task. Here the quotation invites examination of judgement and action. It neither declares every feeling false nor authorises cancelling a report of unfairness by saying, “You are just emotional.” ## Connections between traditions **Aristotle and Buddhist guidance: distinction and direction.** Rhetoric analyses feelings to influence an audience; the Dhammapada points toward ending hostility. These tasks differ. We distinguish experience and action without making either text a diagnosis or a demand for instant calm. **Ancient criticism and Young's voice: the limit of a moral demand.** Refusing a hostile action can coexist with refusing to be a convenient inspiring example. A person need not produce the correct emotion for someone else's comfort. Their difficulty also does not authorise humiliation of another. **Reflection and professional help: different authority.** Identifying an appropriate address for a complaint can help conversation but does not establish causes of changed sleep, pain or behaviour. NHS information preserves a support route and an urgent-situation boundary. Support is not a reward for philosophical maturity. ## Primary sources and research 1. Aristotle. [Rhetoric, Book II](https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.2.ii.html), W. Rhys Roberts; selected II.1–2 and II.9–11. Definitions of emotion, anger, indignation, envy and emulation read. The text's moral and social hierarchy is not adopted as a criterion for the reader. 2. [Dhammapada, Yamakavagga, 3–5](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html), translated from Pali by Acharya Buddharakkhita; opening chapter context read. Brief quotation and original discussion, not a full reproduction. Buddhist guidance is not a clinical protocol. 3. Stella Young. [We're not here for your inspiration](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-03/young-inspiration-porn/4107006), ABC, 3 July 2012. Main essay read for a neighbouring route during this work; no repeated full reading claimed. Personal testimony, not population research. 4. NHS. [Anger](https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/feelings-symptoms-behaviours/feelings-and-symptoms/anger/), main text including seeking help; reviewed 4 August 2026. Selected passages checked 24 October 2026. English services are not promised to all readers. ## Tags anger, envy, unfairness, illness, disability, feeling, need, action, boundaries, support, responsibility, comparison, loss, accessibility, relationships, help, hatred, forgiveness, dignity, Aristotle, Dhammapada, Stella Young, ethics, ordinary life ## About the authors Andrey Zarinsh is the author and founder of United Wisdom. He explores inner transformation, the unity of traditions, intercultural dialogue and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh. Maria Evilkut is a co-author of United Wisdom. Alongside research, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real life between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki.