Mastering the emotions

[Marblehead]

( and Turtles).

I was listening to them just the other day.

[Kajenx]

I only chose to follow the logic in the direction of reduced stress. It doesn't matter if you believe in free will or not, the methods I've oulined will work either way, I think. However, I don't think I chose the sucky option - assuming a person can actually choose what they believe haha. If I believed in free will, I'd still be trying to eliminate my anxiety problems through willpower. Once I realized I had no control over my emotional state, I learned to accept the anxiety when it came, and this reduced and eventually eliminated the anxiety altogether. The side effects to this acceptance, as I began applying it to the rest of my life, have been incredible. My only aim for many years has been to find the mind that is most enjoyable to live in. I believe I've found the way to it, so that's what I'm trying (and perhaps failing) to convey in this thread. ^^

Edited June 9, 2014 by Kajenx

[Kajenx]

Actually, stosh, I think I answered your two questions - at least how I understand them best.

 

Who am I? - I am a conglomeration of causes and effects.

 

What do I do now? - Remove resistance to what I'm feeling in this eternal event horizion of "now" so I can be at peace no matter what arises.

 

I see freedom in a mind that has eliminated problems by consuming all problems into its serenity. It's amazing to realize that truely anything can become peaceful in the mind. This really works in my experience, too. I'm not just playing with logic or wishful thinking.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Kajenx

[GrandmasterP]

Good call.

In Mindfulness we accept what comes, observe it without engaging with it and let it go by gently returning to the breath.

I'd say that was a conscious choice as far as choosing Mindfulness goes but beyond that I'm with you all the way as you sound to be doing the same thing.

[Brian]

I think your,definition of "free will" is intentionally rigged to make it a nonsensical concept, Kajenx. It would be like someone saying "I like all kinds of music" but then defining "music" to consist of only those songs they like and defining everything else as "noise."

 

You are certainly free to make that choice, though!

 

 

FWIW, we realized about a hundred years ago that cause & effect is a,useful construct in most circumstances but is an illusion in the most rigid sense. Must say that it makes for some fun saloon philosophy...

Edited June 9, 2014 by Brian

[GrandmasterP]

Newton's Cradle.

( I rest my case).

Edited June 9, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Kajenx]

Water balls.

(I rest mine).

[Kajenx]

I think your,definition of "free will" is intentionally rigged to make it a nonsensical concept, Kajenx. It would be like someone saying "I like all kinds of music" but then defining "music" to consist of only those songs they like and defining everything else as "noise."

 

You are certainly free to make that choice, though!

 

 

FWIW, we realized about a hundred years ago that cause & effect is a,useful construct in most circumstances but is an illusion in the most rigid sense. Must say that it makes for some fun saloon philosophy...

 

I can't quite make out how your analogy relates to my argument. What is music standing in for?

 

Basically all I'm saying is that, after examining my experience, I haven't been able to find any choices or decisions that didn't rely on something outside of my control. Every choice or decision I've made - no matter how insignificant - seems to rely on what I want most at the time I make that decision, and those wants are the direct result of things outside of my control, like emotions, instincts, feelings, desires, etc. If you want to go further, those emotions/instincts/etc are also created and conditioned by past experiences that I had no control over.

 

Because of this, I've moved from trying to control how I feel - or trying to control my circumstances - as I've seen this is both unreliable and impossible, to simply withdrawing resistance to the process completely. When I'm successful, the circumstances and the feelings wrapping them lose their emotional meaning and I'm free from stress.

 

Are any of you willing to deconstruct my ideas? You guys seem very sure that we have free will, but I'm still not sure why you believe that. Maybe you could point out how it influences your practice, as well.

 

GrandmasterP, you say you practice acceptance with mindfulness, but why do you do that if there is free will? Why not exercise that free will towards simply feeling the way you want to?

Edited June 10, 2014 by Kajenx

[Silent Answers]

I agree with a lot you said in the beginning, skipped the middle few pages and skimmed over the last few posts..

 

Here's what I have to say: (Woops, I rambled a bit more than I was expecting to, try to read it all...it has a point..sort of)

 

The Tao isn't cause and effect. Cause and effect arise from Tao but Tao itself doesn't action them...more like just something it does. I don't tell my heart to beat consciously, yet it never fails me. Remember probably one of the first things you learn in Taoism: "that which can be named is not the true Tao". Real Tao is quite literally unthinkable, you can feel it's there but to express the thing properly is impossible.

 

Imagine your body, that's easy to Do...now go down in scale little by little, seeing everything that makes your physical body up, down to the individual cells. Now imagine Doing the same for every atom and process that's going on inside you. Now extend that technique outside of your body to fill the room...the building...the world...trillions of stars, galaxies, the universe, the multi-verse..and all the particles which make it so..

 

To Do that and hold it all inside your mind would still merely be scratching the surface of what understanding Tao would require....hence the genius of Tao is that it can be whole yet divided at the same time. Infinitely...which creates its depth and allows it to experience that depth all in one while things happen.

 

I'm drifting off topic, but what I'm trying to get at is (I could be wrong), you're beginning to over think, like my exercise would have. And when you over think - its easier to fall off track.

 

Often, answers are found, in the foundations. All we really need to accept is:

 

Reality is here, yet it's not exactly reality as most see it.

The many are in fact one, experiencing individuality and expression.

The many may collide, causing ripples, which create action and happenings.

These may be interpreted to have meaning

 

You're Doing the right thing not to suppress your emotions and letting them come and go. The emotions are only disturbances within your human mind, as you seem to understand. But while a person can give themselves to the Tao, being taken along with it's divine course, there's no need to waste free will.

 

After all, reality has arisen from Tao, we are here as part of the experience Tao is having of itself. The experience is essential. There's a fine line between a material desire of greed and other desires or choices we make in different aspects of life.

 

Nearly every Taoist adept started with a desire for immortality, as that's the majority of what Taoist teachings focus on...The basic desire to survive and keep surviving is one we are all born with before the outside world begins conditioning us.

 

Most good texts will mention a little disclaimer about the difference of refining yourself into being completely mindless, and refining one's self to know mindlessness yet also diving into and experiencing, riding the waves of the ripples.

 

I'm not saying this as "you're wrong" .."my way"..blah blah ...but I preferred your view when it was simpler.

[GrandmasterP]

 

I can't quite make out how your analogy relates to my argument. What is music standing in for?

 

Basically all I'm saying is that, after examining my experience, I haven't been able to find any choices or decisions that didn't rely on something outside of my control. Every choice or decision I've made - no matter how insignificant - seems to rely on what I want most at the time I make that decision, and those wants are the direct result of things outside of my control, like emotions, instincts, feelings, desires, etc. If you want to go further, those emotions/instincts/etc are also created and conditioned by past experiences that I had no control over.

 

Because of this, I've moved from trying to control how I feel - or trying to control my circumstances - as I've seen this is both unreliable and impossible, to simply withdrawing resistance to the process completely. When I'm successful, the circumstances and the feelings wrapping them lose their emotional meaning and I'm free from stress.

 

Are any of you willing to deconstruct my ideas? You guys seem very sure that we have free will, but I'm still not sure why you believe that. Maybe you could point out how it influences your practice, as well.

 

GrandmasterP, you say you practice acceptance with mindfulness, but why do you do that if there is free will? Why not exercise that free will towards simply feeling the way you want to?

I like your post Kajenx and think that's kinda how Mindfulness works.

We opt to cultivate Mindfulness as a conscious choice and then consciously choose to practice it.

It's never 'automatic' and takes work that one either chooses to do or not do.

I'll concede that there is an automatic factor involved and that is the 'monkey mind' that, left to its own devoces runs away with itself embroidering thoughts and expanding on 'stories' which, without Mindfulness; our mind can be pretty easy to become implicated and involved in.

That mental chatter never ever goes away but Mindfulness teaches us how to deal with it so that it doesn't dominate us.

Everyone reading this has it right now.

In addition to these words you are reading on your screen now there's a whole 'thought show' running in your mind.

Mindfulness encourages us to observe what is happening north of our necks without becoming 'bogged down' by it.

It's a useful cultivation for those that take to it but like everything else it doesn't suit everybody.

There's a cultivation out there to suit all tastes and conditions; Mindfulness has become so popular IMO because it is pretty straightforward and doesn't bring any sort of religious or spiritual baggage with it.

It's a totally secular technique that anyone can learn and use if they choose to do so.

Edited June 10, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Stosh]

Actually, stosh, I think I answered your two questions - at least how I understand them best.

 

Who am I? - I am a conglomeration of causes and effects.

 

What do I do now? - Remove resistance to what I'm feeling in this eternal event horizion of "now" so I can be at peace no matter what arises.

 

I see freedom in a mind that has eliminated problems by consuming all problems into its serenity. It's amazing to realize that truely anything can become peaceful in the mind. This really works in my experience, too. I'm not just playing with logic or wishful thinking.

Well said , the question remains to be reanswered though for any moments trending into the future till the end of us IMO

And have no fear that Im thinking this is a logic 'game' or just 'wishes' I believe you are genuine in this, I really do know what youre getting at independently of having read such here.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, well, I'm still a "cause and effect" guy too.

 

Man follows Earth,

...

...

Etc.

 

Oh, yeah,

 

And Tao follows Tzujan.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Marblehead

[Brian]

 

I can't quite make out how your analogy relates to my argument. What is music standing in for?

<snip>

Here's what I was trying to say:

 

You have created (or, more likely, have adopted) a scenario in which "free will" is defined along the lines of "a random decision totally isolated from all influences, whether external or internal (since the internal can be linked to external or environmental factors to some extent) and for the outcome of which the decision-maker is perfectly indifferent."

 

This is a highly contrived definition carefully crafted to make its existence inconceivable. I consider this to be absurd, much like the fabricated case in which a David Hasselhoff fan defines "music" to consist entirely of The Hoff's #1 hits on the US charts -- and everything else is defined as "noise."

 

There is a continuum of degrees of freedom. Some events/decisions/actions are highly constrained by environmental factors (including things like laws of physics and historical precedent, for instance) while some are less tightly constrained -- some are, in fact, truly random. Whether I choose a strawberry milkshake or a kale smoothie is certainly shaped by a number of factors but that in no way removes from me the option of choosing either one.

 

On top of that, as we become more awake, we begin to see that we are not even locked into "the mundane" and therefore have greater latitude than we might otherwise have recognized. Even without considering the "non-mundane," though, there is a wide range in discretionary decision-making available to all sentient beings -- I would argue, in fact, that this is fundamental.

 

Even the Presbyterians gave up on predetermination...

Edited June 10, 2014 by Brian

[johndoe2012]

Here's what I was trying to say:

 

You have created (or, more likely, have adopted) a scenario in which "free will" is defined along the lines of "a random decision totally isolated from all influences, whether external or internal (since the internal can be linked to external or environmental factors to some extent) and for the outcome of which the decision-maker is perfectly indifferent."

 

This is a highly contrived definition carefully crafted to make its existence inconceivable. I consider this to be absurd, much like the fabricated case in which a David Hasselhoff fan defines "music" to consist entirely of The Hoff's #1 hits on the US charts -- and everything else is defined as "noise."

 

There is a continuum of degrees of freedom. Some events/decisions/actions are highly constrained by environmental factors (including things like laws of physics and historical precedent, for instance) while some are less tightly constrained -- some are, in fact, truly random. Whether I choose a strawberry milkshake or a kale smoothie is certainly shaped by a number of factors but that in no way removes from me the option of choosing either one.

 

On top of that, as we become more awake, we begin to see that we are not even locked into "the mundane" and therefore have greater latitude than we might otherwise have recognized. Even without considering the "non-mundane," though, there is a wide range in discretionary decision-making available to all sentient beings -- I would argue, in fact, that this is fundamental.

 

Even the Presbyterians gave up on predetermination...

What is this "we"?

 

A body?

 

A thought?

 

A feeling?

[Brian]

A pronoun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point is well-taken. As the illusion of discrete individualism dissipates (and, by extension, the collection of individuals), so do other illusions.

 

The concept of free will is merely an aspect of the One.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Brian

[Marblehead]

 

The concept of free will is merely an aspect of the One.

But it still exists as do you and I and all of the other Ten Thousand Things.

[Stosh]

Here's what I was trying to say:

 

You have created (or, more likely, have adopted) a scenario in which "free will" is defined along the lines of "a random decision totally isolated from all influences, whether external or internal (since the internal can be linked to external or environmental factors to some extent) and for the outcome of which the decision-maker is perfectly indifferent."

 

This is a highly contrived definition carefully crafted to make its existence inconceivable. I consider this to be absurd, much like the fabricated case in which a David Hasselhoff fan defines "music" to consist entirely of The Hoff's #1 hits on the US charts -- and everything else is defined as "noise."

 

There is a continuum of degrees of freedom. Some events/decisions/actions are highly constrained by environmental factors (including things like laws of physics and historical precedent, for instance) while some are less tightly constrained -- some are, in fact, truly random. Whether I choose a strawberry milkshake or a kale smoothie is certainly shaped by a number of factors but that in no way removes from me the option of choosing either one.

 

On top of that, as we become more awake, we begin to see that we are not even locked into "the mundane" and therefore have greater latitude than we might otherwise have recognized. Even without considering the "non-mundane," though, there is a wide range in discretionary decision-making available to all sentient beings -- I would argue, in fact, that this is fundamental.

 

Even the Presbyterians gave up on predetermination...

Wow you said that great !

But I cant go with the 'All is one' thing if it means nothing exists in any fashion. Im thinking its fine- if all does exist and all is one -as part of totality.

As someone once suggested , if free will of an individual eventually comes down to an aspect of mans relative complexity only , well than thats what free will is.

( this idea sort of -can become- an idea of infinite progression though,thats to say, because the mind becomes sufficiently complex that it births a new universe itself not identical to this one , but operating within a contex of complexity becoming awareness as in 2001 a space odyssey)

A thing pointing at free will existing is that we can make an error, predict things that dont happen , or imagine what has not been done.. ,, in a mechanically operating universe of no freedom , 'what would an error be but a thing that didnt occur' -- so no error is possible. Can a billiard ball err ? flying off the table and transmute into a bird?, no, but you might imagine it. I feel this clearly indicates that there is something different about a mind than merely the laws of regular physics , but it appears to be a thing that does exist. ( to me)

Edited June 10, 2014 by Stosh

[Brian]

Wow you said that great !

But I cant go with the 'All is one' thing if it means nothing exists in any fashion. Im thinking its fine- if all does exist and all is one -as part of totality.

I think we are on the same page.

[Brian]

But it still exists as do you and I and all of the other Ten Thousand Things.

You'll get no argument from me!

 

I think many people get the "first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain" part but never integrate the final "then there is" part, if you follow me.

[Brian]

You'll get no argument from me!

 

I think many people get the "first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain" part but never integrate the final "then there is" part, if you follow me.

Just walked into a restaurant for lunch and guess what Donovan started singing as I sat down?

 

A little spooky, actually...

[Marblehead]

Just walked into a restaurant for lunch and guess what Donovan started singing as I sat down?

 

A little spooky, actually...

I enjoy having spooky experiences like that. I even enjoyed yours you had just now and I didn't even have it.

[Kajenx]

This discussion is interesting. I'd say you all have a very different conception of the Tao than I do - and also from each other if I'm reading you correctly. That makes sense for this kind of subject, though, haha. Maybe I could bring some Buddhist concepts into the mix because that's the way my practice has been going lately, and I think it could help clarify what I'm trying to say (or obscure it futher XD). I'm not really married to any ideas and I don't think practice needs to be justified by logical thinking (I'm mostly interested in what "works" these days), but the concepts I've brought up in the last few posts are what eventually brought me TO the methods I'm using, so I see them as valuable pointers, if nothing else.

 

Anyway, after I first saw the "outer world" mind-frame around new years, I've been trying to understand exactly what it is to make it easier to enter and remain in it. What's always been confusing about it was that nothing is really different when the switch happens - even though EVERYTHING is. It feels different, even though the feelings I was just having are still there. Everything is incredibly clear and beautiful, even though it's all perfectly ordinary and unchanged. It's almost like nothing happened at all, but everything is suddenly perfect. Just recently I read a line that seemed to explain it perfectly, "Nirvana is realizing the emptiness of samsara."

 

Now this can be a lot to unpack, and I was resistant to these concepts until very recently when I decided to stop being stubborn and look into what these were supposed to be pointing at, lol. My opinion softened a bit when I kept reading dzogchen literature where they seemed to be describing what I was seeing. Emptiness is often described as "nothing in reality has self-nature" which is just a confusing way of saying everything we can sense is intangible. This is true in my experience. If I look at sensations, like thoughts or the visual field, and try to locate them in space or see what they actually are, there is nothing tangible or solid - thus, it's empty like a cloud or a balloon.

 

But emptiness is usually mentioned alongside Luminosity. Luminosity is the undeniable and unshakeable ISness of what we experience. A cloud has form even though we can't touch it. We can't deny that sight or sound is happening, in spite of the fact that it doesn't seem to exist in any place or time. Our experience of reality is, at all times, both empty and luminous.

 

So what's the point of all these concepts? I think they help (at least, they help me) begin to understand anatta. Anatta depends on this idea of cause and effect - or dependent origination. While the luminosity of experience makes it seem undeniable that we exist, the emptiness shows us that we also don't - not in the way we think. Everything is always moving and changing, cause and effect cycling in a persistent moment of "reality". We are not separate from what we're experiencing, and this is why we see emptiness when we look closely. This emptiness is what "we" are. The sense of self is married to and inseparable from experience. So when we are seeing, there is only "seeing" no "seer".

 

This mind state I keep talking about, I think it comes from recognizing the emptiness of something. Sometimes it's a sensation, like sight, other times it's emotional qualities like anxiety and they suddenly transform into emotionlessness. It's like it says in the Mahayana literature, though, emptiness and luminosity are linked and inseparable. So when something is suddenly seen as empty, it becomes more luminous, more real. Maybe this is why it's so confusing to simply observe your reality and then try to explain it. While it's true to say we have the ability to make choices, and our will is free to decide, it's also true to say that this free will is created by past experiences and that these past experiences will condition it in such a way that only one decision will be made. This is because we don't exist, and never did, but there is existence, nonetheless.

 

Edited for spelling since I typed it on my tablet, lol...

Edited June 11, 2014 by Kajenx

[Stosh]

This discussion is interesting. I'd say you all have a very different conception of the Tao than I do - and also from each other if I'm reading you correctly. That makes sense for this kind of subject, though, haha. Maybe I could bring some Buddhist concepts into the mix because that's the way my practice has been going lately, and I think it could help clarify what I'm trying to say (or obscure it futher XD). I'm not really married to any ideas and I don't think practice needs to be justified by logical thinking (I'm mostly interested in what "works" these days), but the concepts I've brought up in the last few posts are what eventually brought me TO the methods I'm using, so I see them as valuable pointers, if nothing else.

 

Anyway, after I first saw the "outer world" mind-frame around new years, I've been trying to understand exactly what it is to make it easier to enter and remain in it. What's always been confusing about it was that nothing is really different when the switch happens - even though EVERYTHING is. It feels different, even though the feelings I was just having are still there. Everything is incredibly clear and beautiful, even though it's all perfectly ordinary and unchanged. It's almost like nothing happened at all, but everything is suddenly perfect. Just recently I read a line that seemed to explain it perfectly, "Nirvana is realizing the emptiness of samsara."

 

Now this can be a lot to unpack, and I was resistant to these concepts until very recently when I decided to stop being stubborn and look into what these were supposed to be pointing at, lol. My opinion softened a bit when I kept reading dzogchen literature where they seemed to be describing what I was seeing. Emptiness is often described as "nothing in reality has self-nature" which is just a confusing way of saying everything we can sense is intangible. This is true in my experience. If I look at sensations, like thoughts or the visual field, and try to locate them in space or see what they actually are, there is nothing tangible or solid - thus, it's empty like a cloud or a balloon.

 

But emptiness is usually mentioned alongside Luminosity. Luminosity is the undeniable and unshakeable ISness of what we experience. A cloud has form even though we can't touch it. We can't deny that sight or sound is happening, in spite of the fact that it doesn't seem to exist in any place or time. Our experience of reality is, at all times, both empty and luminous.

 

So what's the point of all these concepts? I think they help (at least, they help me) begin to understand anatta. Anatta depends on this idea of cause and effect - or dependent origination. While the luminosity of experience makes it seem undeniable that we exist, the emptiness shows us that we also don't - not in the way we think. Everything is always moving and changing, cause and effect cycling in a persistent moment of "reality". We are not separate from what we're experiencing, and this is why we see emptiness when we look closely. This emptiness is what "we" are. The sense of self is married to and inseparable from experience. So when we are seeing, there is only "seeing" no "seer".

 

This mind state I keep talking about, I think it comes from recognizing the emptiness of something. Sometimes it's a sensation, like sight, other times it's emotional qualities like anxiety and they suddenly transform into emotionlessness. It's like it says in the Mahayana literature, though, emptiness and luminosity are linked and inseparable. So when something is suddenly seen as empty, it becomes more luminous, more real. Maybe this is why it's so confusing to simply observe your reality and then try to explain it. While it's true to say we have the ability to make choices, and our will is free to decide, it's also true to say that this free will is created by past experiences and that these past experiences will condition it in such a way that only one decision will be made. This is because we don't exist, and never did, but there is existence, nonetheless.

 

Edited for spelling since I typed it on my tablet, lol...

Well the personal experience is a good thing to focus on , but then theres the logical-understanding underpinnings which analyse the personal experiences we have. This is just making "sense ' of the picture , , and theres a lot more complexity in the making sense of it compared to 'sensing' it.

SO , I think it would be interesting if you were to outline just how it is we others seem to differ from each other , It wont bother me , and I doubt it would bother the Mh and Brian ,, who are even more level headed than I . It might be revealing if I havent seen a forest for having been looking at trees. I know Mh doesnt go for some of my ideas ,, they are too 'far out'... and Brian , well I havent read any post of his that summarizes his world view... ( whether he has posted such I dont know).

That we three have some common ideas merely suggests that there actually is a moon we each point to , not that the ideas undermine one another.

Ive read by a buddhist , a thing indicating that they are advised to water down the logic , lest they take it too far , having non-good ramifications, so if you decide not to lean too much on their lingo , you might be more in tune to my own ears.

If youre up to it.

 

And yes we easily should agree that there at leas IS existance , now if we could just you to accept that there is differentiation ,, meaning, you exist in it ...then buddhism is getting a spanking.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Stosh

[Brian]

I'll post a thread in my PPF related to my worldview...

[Marblehead]

Yes Kajenx, I could see the Buddhism in the words you were sharing with us. And that's great if it is working for you.

 

 

To Brian: Your worldview? Does that mean "your subjective interpretation of the objective"?