Questioner: Constructive anger or annoyance is good, is it not?

Dadashri: What do people call that? Even children will say, "he is always cranky!" it is foolish to become irritated. Irritation is considered a weakness. If we ask the children what their father is like, they would say that he is a very cranky person. Does this not discredit the father's reputation?

If you ask a child whom he likes best in the family, he would say that he likes his mother the best because she does not get angry. The father undoubtedly comes last on his list because the father always gets angry. I would remind the child that his father is the one who provides everything for him and would ask whether he still favored his mother. The child would nod his head. Now tell me, we work hard, we feed them, we bring home the money and give it to them, and even then we come last.

People will think that a father is worthless because he displays so much anger towards his child. But what sort of justice would this be according to nature? According to nature's law, the father is binding punya. Why is it considered a punya in spite of his anger? It is because he is subjecting himself to turmoil for the benefit of his child. He binds punya because he takes on the strife for the happiness of his child. Generally all forms of anger will bind paap, except where one becomes angry and sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of his child or his disciple. Here, punya is bound. People will look upon him with disgust and disapproval. The justice of nature is different. There is no hinsak bhaav (intention to hurt) when you become angry with your sons or your daughters, but there is hinsak bhaav everywhere else. His taanto (lingering of annoyance and anger) however, may remain and if so, whenever he sets eyes on his child, the conflict will arise inside him.

Now if neither the intent to hurt nor the lingering of annoyance were present in the anger, one would attain liberation. If just the hinsak bhaav is missing, but the taanto is still there, then one would bind punya. Just look at the intricate details of discovery of The Lord.