Emotions are the path

[old3bob]

Ah,  I'd say Steve hits the nail on the head with, "...What has happened is that emotional reactivity is seen in context, with less personal identification, and has far less control over my choices and patterns of behavior. This leads to more sensible choices and fewer regrets. This is what freedom from aversion and attachment have meant for me and the only way to discover this is through working with the emotions directly and consistently..."

 

(my underline)

Edited May 10, 2023 by old3bob

[Apech]

15 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I thought he was saying there is suffering, so don’t get too attached to things in the first place because the attachment causes the suffering to happen, not the actual event. 

 

I see it more like this - but bear in mind I am not a very orthodox Buddhist - is that based on the derivation of the word for 'suffering' that is 'dukkha', which meant originally a defective axel of a wheel.  (It's from Vedic sources and cart and chariots were very important to them).  So, say you are riding a bike with a wobbly wheel, you aren't going to get a smooth ride - you'll be thrown around and bounced up and down.  The natural tendency for most of us is to cling on tighter and tighter as the ride gets worse.  You try to save yourself by holding on as hard as you can.  But the net effect of this is to make the shaking even worse.  However, the right strategy is like a professional rider is to keep a looser flexible grip, to ride the bumps, come up in the saddle, go with the bumps.  In this sense clinging makes us suffer.

 

Applied to life, you could say the world is out of kilter, bad things happen, it has a kind of inherent instability and tendency to chaos, natural disasters and so on.  Although being strictly accurate this is the samsaric world which is being referred to.  Our clinging on and hoping for a status quo or a safe space make the ride worse.  Beyond this there is another question as to whether what we experience as happening is really happening, or are we just seeing it wrong.  But that's really another stage.

 

15 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Absolutely, a mentally constructed coping mechanism is like a ship precariously balanced on a dry dock, feeling past trauma is the same ship falling into the water and sinking.  Agreed this is what we are averse to, having to deal emotionally and intellectually with the sunken ship. I’ve been practicing not being averse to this sort of process for decades, and I still have resistance to allowing the feeling/thoughts. 

 

 

If this is indeed the basis of Buddhism I wouldn’t be against it, it sounds thoroughly sane to me. 

 

 

 

I think the idea of allowing as you put it is key.

[S:C]

14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Lets just say it takes a special kind of person to read about the amazing Daoist wizards of old and say "nah, I'd rather go for dependent origination and impermanence."

(bold by me)

Maybe those kinds of persons who are afraid of or fleeing responsibility that might be more that those can handle? 

Further development might come with obligations to handle the acquired well in deeds also. Not everyone might be adequatly equipped or feel so.

14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

the promise of multiple orgasms, superhuman fighting skills, and immortality. 

(bold by me)

 

It does seem a bit extreme, no?

 

But then again so does:

14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

dependent origination and impermanence.

(bold by me)

 

Not exactly 'middle way', - is it?

 

Afaik the Buddhists don't have a deontological ethic, but a consequentialist one, is that true? Might that be one of the core differences in how they handle 'things' compared to Daoists?

 

8 hours ago, old3bob said:

Steve hits the nail on the head with, "...What has happened is that emotional reactivity is seen in context, with less personal identification,

Less engagement, and thus less action with consequences (sound of unstruck silence wise ideally?) - while diverting emotional reactivity away to - - dissolution, impermanence and dependent origination, - but no avoidance mode?

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Beyond this there is another question as to whether what we experience as happening is really happening, or are we just seeing it wrong.  But that's really another stage.

What do you mean by 'wrong' here? - -

does this question help when dealing with conventional 'truths'? Doesn't the average human need an ideal to strive for in conventional life - other than 'emptiness of ultimate truth' or 'originating light ground of possibilities' , which for most is dangerous as it is before conceptualization (... before thoughts, before emotions happens but recurringly) without clear defined boundaries and gives those seeking no direction?

 

On 11.9.2020 at 12:42 PM, Apech said:

When faced with this there are probably three stages of response.  Firstly trying to stop or control the emotion.  Then wanting to transform them into something better.  Then lastly waking up to precisely what is going on and why.  The first two are ok and natural but not really much use.  It's the last one where emotions become the path.

 

This does not mean that your individual feelings are particularly important.  They are just patterns of movement of energy.  So for instance, you might feel particularly angry about something and want to express it.  But that is missing the point.  If you are just indulging in the strength of yur feelings you aren't learning anything - even if there might be some temporary feeling of liberation.

 

It is in the emotional field where this 'pushing away' is occurring which is blocking your ability to see your true nature, duality is being generated through it.  One reason for cultivation is to create a unified and coherent being - one pointed focus - which can form the basis.  On different levels and different ways conflicting emotional states are being generated - for instance by holding together essentially contradictory ideas about ourselves and the nature of reality.

 

Unfortunately for most of us we have a huge baggage of emotional content and experiences to work through.  It can seem overfacing.  But nevertheless this is the work.

(bold by me)

 

does this mean that in a way - this emotional equilibrium is this ideal for you (you mention Mahamudra in your opening post, I fail to make the connection to emotions here still… ), the ideal you strive for; - and does that count even in ethical questions? how would you deal with those (- on regards to emotion, - wouldn't that be a view of extreme subjectivity... am I confused! )?

 

On 11.9.2020 at 8:10 PM, steve said:

The single most powerful and practical energetic movement in our experience to work and play with is emotional.

(italic by me)

 

Intriguing thought.

There again, the old daoists seem to have an intersting sliding scale for the phenomenon of emotions and their changes in time (sadness to wisdom, fear to excitement etc. etc. - might be interesting to try that out, no? might that be a path in itself, not fully probably...? oh I’ve come to so not like my guessing games here…).

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by schroedingerscat
incomplete & add on

[old3bob]

S__cat , I can't say much about those Buddhist terms you used because half the time they are Greek to me    Anyway I'd say not a faking away to dissolution (etc.) if that is what you meant but a greater resolution because of deep understanding of it.

 

I think Steve meant what could be called the non-knee jerk part of our mind having insight into the knee-jerk part thus getting into less re-active troubles. (he would have to comment if that is along the lines of what he meant since maybe it wasn't ?)  My take is that this drift could be extrapolated to the Eye of Spirit having an even deeper insight into the total mind, including the non-knee-jerk part.

  7 hours ago, old3bob said:

Steve hits the nail on the head with, "...What has happened is that emotional reactivity is seen in context, with less personal identification,

Less engagement, and thus less action with consequences - while diverting emotional reactivity away to - - dissolution, impermanence and dependent origination?

Edited May 10, 2023 by old3bob

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

Less engagement, and thus less action with consequences - while diverting emotional reactivity away to - - dissolution, impermanence and dependent origination, - but no avoidance mode?

 

Another point worthy of making is that the objective is not to divert emotional reactivity. 

Emotion is necessary and valuable but often becomes dysfunctional for us due to poor processing. 

We repress/suppress/avoid due to aversion which makes it stronger and more tenacious.

We grasp, hold on, and chase due to attachment which has a similar result.

This is what Apech is pointing out from his chariot.

 

 

The idea of reducing attachment and aversion is not less engagement at all, if anything it is more.

In lessening aversion we engage more completely and nakedly with that we tend to avoid.

In lessening attachment we engage more completely with everything else that was neglected due to our infatuation.

The nature of the emotional reactivity in general becomes more clear and skillful practice aids in processing.

This type of dissolution is not avoidance and not diversion, it is meaningful liberation.

It allows the emotional content to express itself as much as needed until it naturally runs its course. 

 

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, steve said:

 

Thank goodness that’s not the case for our Daoist sisters and brothers!

😎

 

 

20 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

...  Good thing these conversations aren't happening on Zoom because I wouldn't want my fellow Bums to see me roll my eyes. ...

 

You need ;

 

'Steve from the Internet '  sunglasses .

[Apech]

4 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

 

What do you mean by 'wrong' here? - -

does this question help when dealing with conventional 'truths'? Doesn't the average human need an ideal to strive for in conventional life - other than 'emptiness of ultimate truth' or 'originating light ground of possibilities' , which for most is dangerous as it is before conceptualization (... before thoughts, before emotions happens but recurringly) without clear defined boundaries and gives those seeking no direction?

 

By wrong I mean a confused or ignorant view of what is happening (and why).  I don't mean morally wrong.  I mean simply that you don't understand your circumstances or what is happening.

 

4 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

(bold by me)

 

does this mean that in a way - this emotional equilibrium is this ideal for you (you mention Mahamudra in your opening post, I fail to make the connection to emotions here still… ), the ideal you strive for; - and does that count even in ethical questions? how would you deal with those (- on regards to emotion, - wouldn't that be a view of extreme subjectivity... am I confused! )?

 

 

Mahamudra is a high level thing.  Emotional equilibrium or perhaps basic sanity is something we need to establish on the way.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

 

 

 

[Invisible Acropolis]

people often stir up emotions to distract themselves.. most people tend to favor drama and noise over recognition and silence, because that is what society trains people to do

 

its typically lauded as some kind of "victory of humanity" to express some or another highly charged emotion based on your idea of how important you are or how much of some object or another you have accumulated

 

people typically seek to avoid the plain truth which exposes who they are in actuality (as in, how they act)... but rather they are much more obsessed and intensely engaged in narrating endless stories and tales and dramatic productions about who they dream of being and all the other dreamy dreams that go along with it

 

the action of ignoring every bit of truth becomes who they actually are - as in, "ignorant" i. e. being continually engaged in the activity of ignorance 

 

countless varieties of emotions are used to accomplish this kind of distraction

 

emotions arent "inherently valid" just because "feelings" or whatever... thats ridiculous 

 

your choices in the moment determine who you actually are... your actions determine who you are in actuality... not your stories about your actions or your dreams about your stories of who you dream of being 

[Mark Foote]

On 5/9/2023 at 1:54 PM, old3bob said:

 

... anyway when I look at the Tibetan Wheel of Life I see freedom in any and all of the realms (and beyond realms) as being a key point,  with there being a depiction of the Buddha in each;  thus it is not exactly being a free from  per a disconnect but a transforming freedom in,  thus those realms and the beings depicted don't need the destruction or denial of realms they need freedom in them and to be able to move among them as needed,  just as I think the showing of the Buddha in each realm means.

 

Something I wrote years ago about waking up and falling asleep:

 

Just before I fall asleep, my awareness can move very readily, and my sense of where I am tends to move with it. This is also true when I am waking up, although it can be harder to recognize (I tend to live through my eyes in the daytime, and associate my sense of place with them). When my awareness shifts readily, I realize that my ability to feel my location in space is made possible in part by the freedom of my awareness to move.
 

I sometimes overlook my location in space because I attach to what I’m feeling, or I’m averse to it, or I ignore it. The result is that I lose the freedom of my awareness to shift and move, and I have difficulty relaxing or staying alert. When I allow what I feel to enter into where I am, then my awareness remains free, and I can relax and keep my wits about me.

 

 

Something I wrote recently, really about the same thing:

 

“One-pointedness” can shift, as every particle of the body (with no part left out) comes into the placement of attention.  At the moment when “one-pointedness” can shift as though in open space, the influence of volition or habit on the activity of inhalation and exhalation ceases altogether.
 

 

Something somebody else said:

 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III p 294)

 

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.
 

(SN IV 145, Pali Text Society Vol IV p 85)

 

“…I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second trance, thought initial and sustained has ceased. When one has attained the third trance, zest has ceased. When one has attained the fourth trance, inbreathing and outbreathing have ceased… Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.”
 

(SN IV 217, PTS vol IV p 146)

 

What does it have to do with the central channel?
 

The internal develops the ch’i; the external develops the sinews, bones, and skin.

(“Master Cheng’s Thirteen Chapters on T’ai-Chi Ch’uan”, translated by Wile, 1st ed pg 39)
 

I would posit that the patterns in the development of ch’i reflect involuntary activity of the body generated in the stretch of ligaments. There is, in addition, a possible mechanism of support for the spine from the displacement of the fascia behind the spine, a displacement that can be effected by pressure generated in the abdominal cavity and that may quite possibly depend on a push on the fascia behind the sacrum by the bulk of the extensor muscles, as they contract (see my Kinesthesiology of Fascial Support).

 

 

What does that have with surfacing emotions hidden in the amygdala, and developing emotional intelligence (thanks, Goleman)--the experience of a freedom from action occasioned by "determinate thought" or volition I think is key.  
 

Or is it like euthymia, to all intents and purposes, Greek?
 

[old3bob]

Hey Mark, glad to hear you could relate in your own way to my attempted and partial Wheel of Life interpretation.

 

I tend to shy away from  the negation like talk or terms that one often hears coming from aspects of Buddhism, (btw its interesting to me that the 4 -fold negation is not really negative at all but more like a Koan that brings one to an important  threshold)   Anyway, did not the historic Buddha come to a culmination in his teachings and exclaim/proclaim, "Wonder of wonders! " thus to me being able to leap off of mountains of  solved complexities and into ecstatically simple, grounded and powerful freedom! 

Edited May 11, 2023 by old3bob

[stirling]

On 5/9/2023 at 5:02 PM, Bindi said:

Dissolving or softening the fixed world views around trauma would be the natural result of effective emotional/mental work with the trauma itself. If you’re saying the work that needs to be done is on the fixed world view itself I would disagree. 

 

I'd say it is both. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing.

 

On 5/9/2023 at 5:02 PM, Bindi said:

Someone I know was threatened with a knife, and it took him weeks to get over the initial fear, and years to start coming to terms with the emotional damage. Exposure therapy would have been inappropriate. Same with rape scenarios, exposure to anything to do with rape would be inappropriate. Exposure therapy is good for various phobias, but it would be silly to call someone knifephobic or rapephobic.

 

No-one is saying that exposure therapy is across the board appropriate, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. It was merely an example. 

 

On 5/9/2023 at 5:02 PM, Bindi said:

I do get annoyed about ungrounded spiritual platitudes, people’s beliefs that they have found some sort of spiritual space beyond the mind, ultimate truth assertions etc. 

 

I agree with you about platitudes and beliefs, transcendent or otherwise. All real knowledge is, and must be experiential.  

 

On 5/9/2023 at 5:02 PM, Bindi said:

Emotional work is the rightful coalface to be working on IMO, any philosophy that doesn’t make that clear does tend to annoy me, and I see these philosophies and methods that are at cross purposes with emotional work being trotted out endlessly on this site. 

 

I suggest you judge a philosophy by intimate knowledge of its practitioners or teachers, NOT what you read. I don't know what philosophies or methods you believe are at cross purposes, but if you are pointing that designation at me you don't understand anything about my work at all. From my perspective denying emotions or working with them is literally impossible. Awakening only DEEPENS emotional content and connection. Prajna (Wisdom) and Boddhicitta (compassion) ALWAYS go hand in hand. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

I suggest you judge a philosophy by intimate knowledge of its practitioners or teachers, NOT what you read. I don't know what philosophies or methods you believe are at cross purposes, but if you are pointing that designation at me you don't understand anything about my work at all. From my perspective denying emotions or working with them is literally impossible. Awakening only DEEPENS emotional content and connection. Prajna (Wisdom) and Boddhicitta (compassion) ALWAYS go hand in hand. 

 

I don't wish to intrude here but quite often the philosophy is fine (as a philosophy) but the teachers and practitioners are not.  So I would say do not judge say Buddhist philosophy by its teachers.  They are regularly getting into hot water over something.  Quite often its sex which is their downfall.

 

I would also argue, whilst affirming that emotion is the path (since I started this thread anyway it would be churlish not to) - I don't think Bodhicitta is an emotion as such.  I could say more but then I would have cause to mention non-duality

[liminal_luke]

16 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

They are regularly getting into hot water over something.  Quite often its sex which is their downfall.

 

 

Isn't it everybodies -- or maybe I'm just projecting? 

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Isn't it everybodies -- or maybe I'm just projecting? 

Luke when one is as charismatic and handsome as you and me it is almost inevitable.

[stirling]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

I don't wish to intrude here but quite often the philosophy is fine (as a philosophy) but the teachers and practitioners are not.  So I would say do not judge say Buddhist philosophy by its teachers.  They are regularly getting into hot water over something.  Quite often its sex which is their downfall.

 

I'll have to disagree with you here. If a would be practitioner discovers that Buddhism doesn't seem create kind, helpful teachers I'd suggest they look somewhere else. 

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

I would also argue, whilst affirming that emotion is the path (since I started this thread anyway it would be churlish not to) - I don't think Bodhicitta is an emotion as such.  I could say more but then I would have cause to mention non-duality

 

I don't think I implied that Bodhicitta is an emotion, did I? Relative Bodhicitta can certainly PRESENT emotionally in my experience. 

 

 

[stirling]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

I could say more but then I would have cause to mention non-duality

 

I wish you would.

 

[Nungali]

20 hours ago, Invisible Acropolis said:

people often stir up emotions to distract themselves.. most people tend to favor drama and noise over recognition and silence, because that is what society trains people to do

 

YES!   Its a common theme 'on the commune' .  Actually, some seem permanently stuck in in hat cycle .

 

20 hours ago, Invisible Acropolis said:

 

its typically lauded as some kind of "victory of humanity" to express some or another highly charged emotion based on your idea of how important you are or how much of some object or another you have accumulated

 

people typically seek to avoid the plain truth which exposes who they are in actuality (as in, how they act)... but rather they are much more obsessed and intensely engaged in narrating endless stories and tales and dramatic productions about who they dream of being and all the other dreamy dreams that go along with it

 

Wow .   Try working in the film industry for that one ! 

 

Conversation with a 'muppet'  at work ;

 

Q :  " If you could be anyone you wanted to be , who would you be ? "

 

Me;  " Look, stop asking stupid questions and get back to work . "

 

Q ;  " F*** you ! Why are you always so  .... so  ....  frustrating !

 

Me:  " Okay then ... my answer is  'myself' . I am very happy with being myself . I have put a lot of work into that .  "

 

Q, " What ... YOU !  You have to be kidding .

 

Me;  "  Okay , who would you rather be  ... other than yourself ? "

 

Q ;  " Ohhhh , I dunno ... someone like Brad Pitt . "

 

Me  :  " You are a total  f****** idiot ! "

 

Q :  " Whats wrong with that ? Why are you such an a*** hole   ....  < rant rave etc  >

 

Me ; " Okay ... look I am sorry about that .  I take it back . You know what ? i actually hope it works out for you . I hope one day you can become Brad Pitt yourself . "

 

Q :  " Really ?  ..... Thanks mate !    Geee ... you are not that bad a bloke at all . "

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Invisible Acropolis said:

 

the action of ignoring every bit of truth becomes who they actually are - as in, "ignorant" i. e. being continually engaged in the activity of ignorance 

 

countless varieties of emotions are used to accomplish this kind of distraction

 

emotions arent "inherently valid" just because "feelings" or whatever... thats ridiculous 

 

your choices in the moment determine who you actually are... your actions determine who you are in actuality... not your stories about your actions or your dreams about your stories of who you dream of being 

 

But ..... but  ....

 

 

 

 

 

      ... now you have hurt my feelings  ....

 

 

 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Isn't it everybodies -- or maybe I'm just projecting? 

 

Noooo  ( the first part )  and  YES !  ( the second )

 

Its just because you young and have not experienced  ....

 

WOMANOPAUSE   ( Men's menopause  ) .  let me explain ;

 

It starts as a strange sensation in the 'nether regions' and moves up through the body to lodge near the top of the head .

 

Some say it is the brain, returning to its rightful place .

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

Luke when one is as charismatic and handsome as you and me it is almost inevitable.

 

 

 

 

... there is  nothing worse than a smug cat before breakfast  

 

 

 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

I'll have to disagree with you here. If a would be practitioner discovers that Buddhism doesn't seem create kind, helpful teachers I'd suggest they look somewhere else. 

 

 

I don't think I implied that Bodhicitta is an emotion, did I? Relative Bodhicitta can certainly PRESENT emotionally in my experience. 

 

 

 

 

I have personally known a great kind and helpful teacher that nearly got into hot water over sex .    I got great teaching/ practices  from him / them ( Karma Kagyu ). They did have a few homeless  youth staying there  and the issue was one of  homosexual attraction and  'exploration'   with  young lads ( I think they where 'of age' ... just ) .

 

The reason there was no full immersion (in the hot water ) was after a report and resultant visit by lama , it was hand waved away . ...

 

and this part is my assumption :   as that happens all the time in monasteries .

 

However , I felt it did not impact on the kindness and helpfulness of the teachers there .  I got benefit , the boys seemed happy , the one eyed cat and the three legged dog ( also homeless that they took in   ) seemed well looked after .

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Isn't it everybodies -- or maybe I'm just projecting? 

 

No, I think a lot of men like to 'get into hot water re. sex '

 

 

 

( I am not a fan of it myself  ..... all that 'bear hair' keeps cloggin up the filter !   )

[Mark Foote]

15 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

I tend to shy away from  the negation like talk or terms that one often hears coming from aspects of Buddhism...
 

I try to stick to the positive and substantive, but lately I am making an exception.
 

Gautama described the feeling of the fourth concentration with a double negation:

 

Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing; seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.
 

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 18-19, see also MN III 92-93, PTS pg 132-134--italics added)
 

 

The explanation that I've cobbled together runs:

 

The “pureness of mind” stems from the cessation of “determinate thought” with regard to the body. Suffusing the body with “purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” is opening the body to the placement of attention by the movement of breath, widening awareness so that there is “not one particle of the body” that cannot become the location where attention is placed.

To say "widening awareness so that any particle of the body can become the location where attention is placed" would not match up with my experience.  I don't take it all in as a whole, I have to hold space for the one singularity of attention at a time.

There are some four-fold negations in the teaching. 

There's a school of mathematics (intuitionism) that believes that one of the four classic axioms of logic is not valid, "the law of the excluded middle":  "either A or not A" (A ^ ~A).  Quite the dust-up, in twentieth century mathematics.  Looks like the issue was more or less resolved by Kurt Gödel, the same guy that presented Einstein with a solution to the equations of relativity that allowed time travel, which caused Einstein to doubt his own equations.

 

In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper, Gödel proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157)
 

(Wikipedia, "Law of the Excluded Middle")
 

The four-fold negation in the teaching:
 

In the West, the catuskoti is often called by its Greek equivalent, the tetralemma, meaning ‘four-corners’. The four corners are four options that one might take on some question: given any question, there are four possibilities, yes, no, both, and neither. Who first formulated this thought seems to be lost in the mists of time, but it seems to be fairly orthodox in the intellectual circles of Gotama, the historical Buddha (c. 6c BCE). Thus, canonical Buddhist texts often set up issues in terms of these four possibilities.

("THE LOGIC OF THE CATUSKOTI", Graham Priest, https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=comparativephilosophy)
 

 

Graham does back-flips to avoid the law of the excluded middle in a pure logic formulation of the catuskoti.  

I know you're interested, old3bob (probably not...).

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Mark Foote

[doc benway]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

I could say more but then I would have cause to mention non-duality

 

 

 

[old3bob]

12 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I try to stick to the positive and substantive, but lately I am making an exception.
 

Gautama described the feeling of the fourth concentration with a double negation:

 

Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing; seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.
 

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 18-19, see also MN III 92-93, PTS pg 132-134--italics added)
 

 

The explanation that I've cobbled together runs:

 

The “pureness of mind” stems from the cessation of “determinate thought” with regard to the body. Suffusing the body with “purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” is opening the body to the placement of attention by the movement of breath, widening awareness so that there is “not one particle of the body” that cannot become the location where attention is placed.

To say "widening awareness so that any particle of the body can become the location where attention is placed" would not match up with my experience.  I don't take it all in as a whole, I have to hold space for the one singularity of attention at a time.

There are some four-fold negations in the teaching. 

There's a school of mathematics (intuitionism) that believes that one of the four classic axioms of logic is not valid, "the law of the excluded middle":  "either A or not A" (A ^ ~A).  Quite the dust-up, in twentieth century mathematics.  Looks like the issue was more or less resolved by Kurt Gödel, the same guy that presented Einstein with a solution to the equations of relativity that allowed time travel, which caused Einstein to doubt his own equations.

 

In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper, Gödel proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157)
 

(Wikipedia, "Law of the Excluded Middle")
 

The four-fold negation in the teaching:
 

In the West, the catuskoti is often called by its Greek equivalent, the tetralemma, meaning ‘four-corners’. The four corners are four options that one might take on some question: given any question, there are four possibilities, yes, no, both, and neither. Who first formulated this thought seems to be lost in the mists of time, but it seems to be fairly orthodox in the intellectual circles of Gotama, the historical Buddha (c. 6c BCE). Thus, canonical Buddhist texts often set up issues in terms of these four possibilities.

("THE LOGIC OF THE CATUSKOTI", Graham Priest, https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=comparativephilosophy)
 

 

Graham does back-flips to avoid the law of the excluded middle in a pure logic formulation of the catuskoti.  

I know you're interested, old3bob (probably not...).

 

 

I may be dense on the subject but I don't know about what sounds like parting out parts of the 4-fold negation,   (are you saying something like that?)  I simply take all 4 parts together as one, for then we could ask where  that leaves the student...?

Edited May 12, 2023 by old3bob

[Apech]

17 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I wish you would.

 

 

Ok well. I belong to a tradition which discourages to the point of banning talk of personal experiences. But I guess I'll have to breach this a little. The 'non-dual' is something which I know annoys some on here, mentioning no names (Bindi) but I see that as an objection to the loose talk bull shit which floats around internet circles and encourages disassociation with 'self' and so on – and the mis-use of emptiness as a concept.

 

My experiences of non duality were characterised by certain feelings and sensations(probably not the right word but bear with me). A feeling of inner unity which focusses in the heart, immense clarity as if one's eyes had opened for the first time, the loss of any gap between the perceiver and the perceived, a flood of 'light' – although not physical light but super awareness and a joy which could be called love. Love without an object of love and unconditioned.

 

Is love an 'emotion' as such? Well maybe or maybe not. Certainly compared to other emotions it is different because it is complete. By this I mean that anger, jealousy, greed, lust … etc. are all operative because they are incomplete. They are all raging against something or desiring what they do not have. They are like water serpents moving through the waters with open mouths. While they are actively in predominance then the non-dual love becomes unavailable to the mind which is dealing with emotions. Not to say it doesn't exist in some sense it is simply unlocatable.

 

As mind and in particular the alaya storehouse has existed since beginningless time we each carry with us a vast (infinite?) store of encoded experiences – and like skins of an onion have built on them the more ancient strata, our own personal charged experiences. These shape our thoughts and feelings and how we perceive the world. From the beginning of our work we have the task of dealing with this burden which we carry. Sometimes the recorded emotional charges are so strong they threaten the very nature of self and lead to mental breakdown, very often they attack our self esteem and try to rob of us will. Because of the need to survive, mostly, these things are buried in order to deal with the present. But sooner or later, especially for those of us that have taken up the task of cultivation they have to be addressed.

 

Because the totality of experience is so vast it would take eternity to unpick it bit by bit. In fact the over facing nature of this task causes many to refute it altogether. To bypass it. They come face to face with it and just turn away. Or say that the path simply does not lie in that direction. Which is ok if you need a rest. But sooner or later you will have to return to deal with the difficult pain – or at least deal with it enough to gain wisdom. The wisdom of knowing what it is, how it affects us, it's influence on our subtle body and mind and so on. That's why I suggest that emotions are the path.

 

What calls us on through the painful path is the unique and unconditioned love which 'exists' in our very nature. For the religious call it the love of God. Otherwise Buddha-nature, which is the beginning of our calling, the path we walk and the place at which we eventually arrive. If our work is successful a new self, built of subtle energies – a jewel in a lotus – coheres around this eternal love and wisdom, as an indestructible being.

 

These are just my thoughts and if there is error in here, please accept my apologies.