Emotions are the path

[Mark Foote]

17 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

“Buddhahood is attained through the gradual process of transforming oneself into the body of perfect enlightenment by overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive emotions that are veils concealing one’s true nature."

Venerable Chöje Lama Phuntsok

http://www.dharmadownload.net/pages/english/Natsok/0014_Leksheyling_teaching/leksheyling_teachings_0012.htm

 

If we can agree that this is the aim...

 

As you might gather from my last post, with the bit about the "new paradigm", no--some of us don't agree with the lama.

"Transforming oneself into the body of perfect enlightenment"--reminiscent of liminal_luke's attempt to get his clients to change themselves into more relaxed bodies. 
 

(conversation between Nanyue and Daoyi ("Ma"), famous in the Ch'an literature of China)

“Great Worthy, what are you aiming at by sitting meditation?”
Ma replied, “I aim to become a Buddha.”
Nanyue then took a tile and began to rub it on a rock in front of the hermitage; Ma asked him what he was doing rubbing the tile.
Nanyue said, “I am polishing it to make a mirror.”
Ma said, “How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?”
Nanyue said, “Granted that rubbing a tile will not make a mirror, how can sitting meditation make a Buddha?”
Ma asked, “Then what would be right?”
Nanyue said, “It is like the case of an ox pulling a cart: if the cart does not go, would it be right to hit the cart, or would it be right to hit the ox?”

 

(from the Pacific Zen Institute's blog, https://www.pacificzen.org/library/koan/tile-polishing/)

 

 

If I want to hit the ox, I have to be aware of where the ox is.
 

In my school, there are only two kinds of sickness.  One is to go looking for the donkey while riding the donkey.  The other is to be unwilling to dismount once having mounted the donkey.

... I tell you that you need not mount the donkey; you are the donkey.

(Foyan, "Instant Zen", tr Cleary)

 

 

There's Buddha-nature for you, just being a donkey!

 

[Bindi]

19 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

As you might gather from my last post, with the bit about the "new paradigm", no--some of us don't agree with the lama.

"Transforming oneself into the body of perfect enlightenment"--reminiscent of liminal_luke's attempt to get his clients to change themselves into more relaxed bodies. 
 

(conversation between Nanyue and Daoyi ("Ma"), famous in the Ch'an literature of China)

“Great Worthy, what are you aiming at by sitting meditation?”
Ma replied, “I aim to become a Buddha.”
Nanyue then took a tile and began to rub it on a rock in front of the hermitage; Ma asked him what he was doing rubbing the tile.
Nanyue said, “I am polishing it to make a mirror.”
Ma said, “How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?”
Nanyue said, “Granted that rubbing a tile will not make a mirror, how can sitting meditation make a Buddha?”
Ma asked, “Then what would be right?”
Nanyue said, “It is like the case of an ox pulling a cart: if the cart does not go, would it be right to hit the cart, or would it be right to hit the ox?”

 

(from the Pacific Zen Institute's blog, https://www.pacificzen.org/library/koan/tile-polishing/)

 

 

If I want to hit the ox, I have to be aware of where the ox is.
 

In my school, there are only two kinds of sickness.  One is to go looking for the donkey while riding the donkey.  The other is to be unwilling to dismount once having mounted the donkey.

... I tell you that you need not mount the donkey; you are the donkey.

(Foyan, "Instant Zen", tr Cleary)

 

 

There's Buddha-nature for you, just being a donkey!

 

Actually, re-reading Chöje Lama Phuntsok‘s quote I think I disagree with it myself 🤔I think “overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive emotions that are veils concealing one’s true nature” should be ‘overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive thoughts that are veils concealing one’s true nature.’ Dismantling historical self defensive emotions leaves one free to kill the ego and the thoughts that conceal one’s true nature fall away as they are unnecessary and no longer required. 
 

But IMO these thoughts only conceal the true nature of the mind, there is something beyond the mind even at its purest that needs to be actualised, I would call this the ‘spirit of the central channel’. Ultimately emotional dysfunction and mental obscurations both obscure the true nature of Self. 
 

Really just thinking aloud here, trying to fit all the pieces together.
 

 

[Mark Foote]

34 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Actually, re-reading Chöje Lama Phuntsok‘s quote I think I disagree with it myself 🤔I think “overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive emotions that are veils concealing one’s true nature” should be ‘overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive thoughts that are veils concealing one’s true nature.’ Dismantling historical self defensive emotions leaves one free to kill the ego and the thoughts that conceal one’s true nature fall away as they are unnecessary and no longer required. 
 

But IMO these thoughts only conceal the true nature of the mind, there is something beyond the mind even at its purest that needs to be actualised, I would call this the ‘spirit of the central channel’. Ultimately emotional dysfunction and mental obscurations both obscure the true nature of Self. 
 

Really just thinking aloud here, trying to fit all the pieces together.
 

 

I agree that emotions, particularly the deeply-rooted emotions that show up as though out of nowhere, leave me feeling like I've suddenly been dropped in a jungle that was there all along but that I am nevertheless clueless to navigate.  That's what I liked about Goleman's work, if I understand him correctly there's a kind of flight-or-fight emotional response to some situations that has to be recognized and responded to in real time in order to resolve the underlying issues.  At least it's some insight for me into jungle etiquette.

I agree that finding my way to well-being is the real concern.  For me the interface between "the internal" and "the external" is dynamic:
 

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)

 

The central channel is usually associated with the nadis of Indian yoga, yes?  There's a phenomena that I think is common to both the Indian and Chinese inner arts--in the terminology of the Tai-Chi classics:

 

... the ch’i moves through the sacrum (wei lu) to the top of the head (ni wan)...

(“Three Levels” from “Cheng Tzu’s Thirteen Treatises on Ta’i Chi Chuan”, Cheng Man Ch’ing, trans. Benjamin Pang Jeng Lo and Martin Inn, p 77-78)

 

Gautama's description was a little different:

 

… it is as if (a person) might be sitting down who had clothed (themselves) including (their) head with a white cloth; there would be no part of (their) whole body that was not covered by the white cloth.

 

(MN III 94, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 134)

 

I believe Gautama's metaphor describes a heightened ability to feel dermatomes, as a consequence of the relaxed nerve exits from the sacrum and spine provided by an even stretch of ligaments.  In some sermons Gautama only referred to the feeling of a cloth around the head, not swaddling the whole body, which is more in keeping with the passage of the ch'i to the "ni-wan".

I don't think it's possible for me to develop the internal without distinguishing patterns in the circulation of activity that belong to "the external", but neither is it possible for me to develop "the external" without the "one-pointed" placement of attention in the movement of breath that constitutes "the internal".  

Seems like everybody wants to get to heaven, but nobody wants to die the "great death" to get there.

 

 

 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

As you might gather from my last post, with the bit about the "new paradigm", no--some of us don't agree with the lama.

"Transforming oneself into the body of perfect enlightenment"--reminiscent of liminal_luke's attempt to get his clients to change themselves into more relaxed bodies. 
 

(conversation between Nanyue and Daoyi ("Ma"), famous in the Ch'an literature of China)

“Great Worthy, what are you aiming at by sitting meditation?”
Ma replied, “I aim to become a Buddha.”
Nanyue then took a tile and began to rub it on a rock in front of the hermitage; Ma asked him what he was doing rubbing the tile.
Nanyue said, “I am polishing it to make a mirror.”
Ma said, “How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?”
Nanyue said, “Granted that rubbing a tile will not make a mirror, how can sitting meditation make a Buddha?”
Ma asked, “Then what would be right?”
Nanyue said, “It is like the case of an ox pulling a cart: if the cart does not go, would it be right to hit the cart, or would it be right to hit the ox?”

 

(from the Pacific Zen Institute's blog, https://www.pacificzen.org/library/koan/tile-polishing/)

 

 

If I want to hit the ox, I have to be aware of where the ox is.
 

In my school, there are only two kinds of sickness.  One is to go looking for the donkey while riding the donkey.  The other is to be unwilling to dismount once having mounted the donkey.

... I tell you that you need not mount the donkey; you are the donkey.

(Foyan, "Instant Zen", tr Cleary)

 

 

There's Buddha-nature for you, just being a donkey!

 

 

 

Thats a curious way to interpret that .

 

You are not being in 'Buddha nature' by being the donkey . YOU are the donkey and the 'Buddha nature'  is riding you .

 

Or if you like  ( as some one else liked this analogy recently ) ;    'You '  ( 'Buddha Nature You ' ) are up in the light,  sunshine  and air ,  floating in your boat . The 'donkey' ( that is you ) is the undersea drone , 'living' observing , reacting, collating information that it sends back up to its operator . Of course, if a clear connection is lost between the two ... all sorts of mischief and 'pointlessness' might start happening.    

 

And it is Okay to hit the Ox , as long as that ox is you ... as well .

 

There are three beasts that may run wild in the psyche of Man . How shalt they plow thy inner fields for cultivation if not the  yoke constrains them  and the whip of their Master guides them ?  The Ox, the Horse and the Unicorn are not easily obedient to thy will .

 

 The Ox is thought . The Unicorn is speech. The Horse is action.

 

As The Master ( Zuradašt )   taught ....  the three central principles :   Good thoughts , good words , good deeds .

 

But how to cultivate them ?  

 

By practices .  As they are , by nature, wild beasts .

 

 

.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Nungali

[Cobie]

Emotion = e-motion (movement of energy); 

it’s the way I think about an emotion, that creates a ‘feeling’ (e.g. compassion and hate are ‘feelings’).

 

The true self has free flowing emotions and thoughts; 

but it restricts speech and actions, it has the control to make choices.

 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Cobie

[Invisible Acropolis]

emotions come from the body, they are an extension of the will to survive, and thus they are instinctual phenomena at the core, and that is why emotions motivate the body to act in various ways 

 

However the emotional life of humanity has "taken on a life of its own" due to human's penchant for abstracting the "self" beyond the body into various conceptual ideas through linguistics and other symbolic thought processes based on various languages composed of various names and forms 

 

therefore humans tend to react to threats against their conceptual identity as if it was a threat to bodily survival.. which is ridiculous from the perspective of consciousness, bur inevitable from the perspective of unconsciousness

 

therefore humanity is trapped by this kind of emotionality based purely in some conceptual identity (aka EGO, self image, personality, etc) and its will to survive... which may or may not have anything to do with the kinds of actual objective truth found in physical evidence 

 

and that is why emotions are not inherently anything except raw motivational energy

[doc benway]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:57 AM, Bindi said:

Is authentic compassion not inherently positive? Can hate ever be constructive because you have the right relationship to it? 

 

If by authentic you mean unconditional, then I would say positive and negative do not apply as unconditional compassion is beyond judgement and discrimination. If you do not mean unconditional then I would say that conditional compassion is not inherently positive, there is often a self-serving component to it.

 

Hatred for slavery can be constructive, as can hatred for corrupt leaders, environmental destruction, and abusers of the vulnerable, and the list goes on.

[doc benway]

On 5/15/2023 at 11:51 AM, Apech said:

 

Is this really your position @steve ? 

 

My comments were genuine but I’d say more like responsive thoughts in the moment than a fixed position.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 11:51 AM, Apech said:

 

Does your family find you a little ... unworldly?

 

😄 You’d have to ask them, not sure they’d tell me the truth…

 

What I can say is that my relationships with my family are far more meaningful, open and direct than ever before, much closer and less judgmental, less reactive.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 11:51 AM, Apech said:

  I suppose yes, at some level everything is a flow of energy - whatever that means.  But there is still, if there is energy, movement.  And in this case there is movement to construct (lit.  heap or put together) or destruct (tear apart).  It is the movement of the world.  And many major emotions are destructive aren't they?  Anger, hate, jealousy ... anything violent - which we know karmically regenerates its own nature into future situations.  The world turns on this stuff whether I like it or identify with it or not.  Or does it?  Aha!

 

I don’t see the emotions or thoughts themselves as destructive, they are intangible and transient experiences. When seen for what they are they can be allowed to come and go. Of course emotions are linked to karma but karma means action, quite literally, and in the presence of thought and emotion we have, or can cultivate, the ability to choose our actions independent of the transient thoughts and feelings, no? I can be furious and murder someone or I can be furious, pause to reflect on the consequences of my actions, and let it pass. These things happen. It is not the emotion but our choices that are destructive IMO.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 11:51 AM, Apech said:

 

What is this self which identifies with emotions or doesn't?  What is it exactly?  Because the ego, normally speaking is just a heap of emotionally charged memories - is it that which is doing the identifying?  I don't think so.  And when we have reduced our identification with these emotions - what are we like?  Do we have feelings and passions?  Do we have love or faith?  Are we kind or cruel?  Or are we intelligences without these things?  Hmmmm.

 

Wonderful questions that are very fertile until stifled with intellectual answers. This is the fuel on the path. For myself I have experienced that reducing my identification with passing feelings, thoughts, roles, and circumstances has allowed me to be more loving, more open, and kinder. As such changes have occurred in my life and relationships my faith in my path has grown.

[Apech]

9 minutes ago, steve said:

 

My comments were genuine but I’d say more like responsive thoughts in the moment than a fixed position.

 

 

😄 You’d have to ask them, not sure they’d tell me the truth…

 

What I can say is that my relationships with my family are far more meaningful, open and direct than ever before, much closer and less judgmental, less reactive.

 

 

 

It's just that I had visions of crockery being thrown, screams of regrettable language and arms being waved alarmingly in your direction.  And you, in order to placate the situation saying calmly -  'honey, your emotions are just flows of energy.'

 

Might work.  Don't think I'll try it.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

As The Master ( Zuradašt )   taught ....  the three central principles :   Good thoughts , good words , good deeds .

 

But how to cultivate them ?  

.

 

Gautama’s teaching revolved around action, around one specific kind of action:

 

…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)
 

“When one determines”—when a person exercises volition, or choice, action of “deed, word, or thought” follows.
 

Gautama also spoke of “the activities”.  The activities are the actions that take place as a consequence of the exercise of volition:
 

“And what are the activities?  These are the three activities:--those of deed, speech and mind.  These are activities.”

(SN II 3, PTS vol II p 4)

Gautama claimed that a ceasing of “action” is possible:
 

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)
 

He spoke in detail about how “the activities” come to cease:
 

“…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)

 

Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.  (The disciple), aloof from sensuality, aloof from evil conditions, enters on the first trance, which is accompanied by thought directed and sustained, which is born of solitude, easeful and zestful, and abides therein.

(SN v 198, PTS vol V p 174, SN “noble” substituted for Ariyan)

[liminal_luke]

4 hours ago, steve said:

 

Hatred for slavery can be constructive, as can hatred for corrupt leaders, environmental destruction, and abusers of the vulnerable, and the list goes on.

 

It's hard to argue against hatred for all the terrible things you mentioned but, even in these situations, I don't think hate is the most constructive response.  Which is not to say that enlightened beings don't actively work to better the world; I'm sure they do.  But do they hate?  I think it's possible to notice injustice and wrongdoing and to take action to set things right without harboring any of the negativity of hatred.

 

There's an inherent and necessary tension between between the absolute reality view -- everything is OK just as it is -- and the relative reality view -- things (often) aren't OK at all.  Logically speaking, a person might think that someone steeped in the absolute view wouldn't lift a finger to better the world: why change things if everything is already OK?  In practice I don't think it works this way, quite the opposite.  It's precisely those that are most accepting of the world as it is that are willing to work the hardest to effect positive change.  

 

Seems to me that radical acceptance is an antidote to depression in the face of great injustice.  Radical acceptance is a corrective for hate.  The world is in a sorry state and there's no time to waste feeling burned out or victimized or in despair.  Hate would only slow us down.

 

(I might mention that I'm more of an armchair philosopher when it comes to these thing so I might be wrong.  Nevertheless, I wanted to share my thoughts.)

 

  

Edited May 16, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Invisible Acropolis]

Quote

तासामनादित्वं चाशिषो नित्यत्वात्॥१०॥

"The samskaras are eternal, because the desire for life is eternal." 

 

- Yoga Sutras 

 

[manitou]

23 hours ago, Bindi said:

Actually, re-reading Chöje Lama Phuntsok‘s quote I think I disagree with it myself 🤔I think “overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive emotions that are veils concealing one’s true nature” should be ‘overcoming and finally eradicating one’s destructive thoughts that are veils concealing one’s true nature.’

 

 

I think I understand what the Lama was saying.

 

If something gets my pecker up, it's because the anger is the result of something that happened to me earlier.  Much earlier.  All anger is based on an original hurt some time in my young life.  When I go through my emotions (anger, in this case), I notice that any little childhood memories that pop up at this same time are crucial.  If there is a hurt remembered, just determining the source of it can be enough to smooth out the wrinkle, so that that particular hurt won't be something that I react to over and over, when someone grates across it.  When the wrinkle is smoothed, there's nothing to grate up against.

 

Sometimes the original hurt (physical, harsh words, perceived injustice, etc) is real deep.  I've noticed that if that is the case, then I must intentionally focus on imprinting the memory to the opposite - sometimes I use a ceremony (usually for others) if the imprint is particularly strong and casts a long shadow.

 

After participating in this process for a long while, the purpose is for the 'body' to become an enlightened body; a body of light, a transparent body.  It is no longer cluttered with ridges of pain left over from when we were 5.  It amazes me how long and dark the cast shadow can be.  It seems like it's a snowball rolling downhill and gaining in mass as it goes further and further down.  And so often the original hurt was something so simple, so forgivable, that it seems incredible that it cast a shadow that can extend to the end of a person's life.

 

But it's the emotions, I've found, that are a real good way to take our own spiritual temperatures.  The more uncluttered I get, the easier life seems to get.  If a negative or painful memory gets in the way, it gets easier and easier to find the original incident; probably because there isn't as much clutter in my soul as there used to be, things can be seen easier.

 

Negative emotions happen for a reason.  They give us clues into our inner selves.  And then we get transparent.

 

 

[manitou]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

Seems to me that radical acceptance is an antidote to depression in the face of great injustice.  Radical acceptance is a corrective for hate.  The world is in a sorry state and there's no time to waste feeling burned out or victimized or in despair.  Hate would only slow us down.

 

 

Radical acceptance.  I love it.

 

What I often go to, is that we are all actually the same entity with millions of different eyes.  When things are looked at with this view, the things that humans can do to each other are pretty astounding.  Especially when you realize that it's the same entity beating up the same entity.  We are not separate, but we are the entity squeezed through different conditionings.

 

Radical acceptance and Is-ness seems to be pretty much the same thing.

[liminal_luke]

2 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

Radical acceptance.  I love it.

 

 

Thanks manitou -- I love it too!  Can't take credit for the phrase though.  Not sure what the earliest use was but it's part of the title of a book by Buddhist teacher Tara Brach, Radical Acceptance: Embracing your Life with the Heart of a Buddha.

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

It's hard to argue against hatred for all the terrible things you mentioned but, even in these situations, I don't think hate is the most constructive response.  Which is not to say that enlightened beings don't actively work to better the world; I'm sure they do.  But do they hate?  I think it's possible to notice injustice and wrongdoing and to take action to set things right without harboring any of the negativity of hatred.

 

There's an inherent and necessary tension between between the absolute reality view -- everything is OK just as it is -- and the relative reality view -- things (often) aren't OK at all.  Logically speaking, a person might think that someone steeped in the absolute view wouldn't lift a finger to better the world: why change things if everything is already OK?  In practice I don't think it works this way, quite the opposite.  It's precisely those that are most accepting of the world as it is that are willing to work the hardest to effect positive change.  

 

Seems to me that radical acceptance is an antidote to depression in the face of great injustice.  Radical acceptance is a corrective for hate.  The world is in a sorry state and there's no time to waste feeling burned out or victimized or in despair.  Hate would only slow us down.

 

(I might mention that I'm more of an armchair philosopher when it comes to these thing so I might be wrong.  Nevertheless, I wanted to share my thoughts.)

 

  

For a Christian take on it (not that I am Christian but it might be a good steer)

 

1 John 2:9 ESV 

Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.

 

1 John 2:11 ESV 

But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

 

Leviticus 19:17 ESV 

“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.

 

I suspect this might be the enlightened view. 

 

 

 

 

[Invisible Acropolis]

"hate" triggers a lot of people, especially just the word itself...  much like "love" does as well, in the same way.. both of these terms and the concepts they refer to are like clickbait 

 

however, ignorance ≠ acceptance... radical or otherwise

 

ignoring all the "nasty things" is not the same as accepting them

 

and the difference is crystal clear 

 

Quote

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

 

4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 

8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

[old3bob]

Jesus was not hesitant to cast out demons and call them for what they are...so we can't exactly apply looking at humans the same as demons even though some humans are driven by, unfortunate victims of, or even willing accomplices for demonic forces.

Edited May 17, 2023 by old3bob

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

It's hard to argue against hatred for all the terrible things you mentioned but, even in these situations, I don't think hate is the most constructive response. 

You’re probably right but I don’t generally get to choose how I feel,. My experience is that the feeling is just there, like thoughts - I don’t choose what thought comes up if I watch closely, but I can choose not to feed it or suppress it or I can be so identified with it that I lose my shit completely, completely unaware, and that is the response. The emotion comes before the response and for me it is not destructive if the response is appropriate.

 

Quote

Which is not to say that enlightened beings don't actively work to better the world; I'm sure they do.  But do they hate?  I think it's possible to notice injustice and wrongdoing and to take action to set things right without harboring any of the negativity of hatred.

Yes, the key for me is in the “without harboring” which is a part of not identifying. I do think all of the trainings we do lessen our tendency to get swept up in thought and emotion, making the emotion less destructive but not necessarily less powerful; and deeper insights into the nature of our mind can profoundly affect how we experience what positivity and negativity mean.

 

Unconditioned compassion is like the sun and shines on all equally but don’t imagine it is so naive as to not know hatred. It subsumes and pervades all of it. Hatred exists in this world, it is “hard wired” in our karma, as do love and lust and as a human it is as it is. It’s OK to think and feel and allow it to guide but not by getting swept up unaware, better to express the fuller context in action.

 

When I’m enlightened I’ll pay careful attention to see what emotions are there and try to report back.

😘

[doc benway]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

It's just that I had visions of crockery being thrown, screams of regrettable language and arms being waved alarmingly in your direction.  And you, in order to placate the situation saying calmly -  'honey, your emotions are just flows of energy.'

 

Might work.  Don't think I'll try it.

 

 

 

🤣

 

Truth is I have felt anger and frustration from loved ones on occasion when I’m not angry or sad enough to meet their expectations. The flip side is the stabilizing effect one can have in trying circumstances and the appreciation and open heartedness I can feel from others as a result.

Try it! But read the room…

 

[Mark Foote]

18 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

There's an inherent and necessary tension between between the absolute reality view -- everything is OK just as it is -- and the relative reality view -- things (often) aren't OK at all.  Logically speaking, a person might think that someone steeped in the absolute view wouldn't lift a finger to better the world: why change things if everything is already OK?  In practice I don't think it works this way, quite the opposite.  It's precisely those that are most accepting of the world as it is that are willing to work the hardest to effect positive change.  

 

Seems to me that radical acceptance is an antidote to depression in the face of great injustice.  Radical acceptance is a corrective for hate.  The world is in a sorry state and there's no time to waste feeling burned out or victimized or in despair.  Hate would only slow us down.

  

Just to be clear, when I said, "can't lift a finger", what I meant was this:

 

One time Huike climbed up Few Houses Peak with Bodhidharma.  Bodhidharma asked, "Where are we going?" Huike said, "Please go right ahead--that's it."  Bodhidharma said, "If you go right ahead, you cannot move a step."

 

("Transmission of LIght (Denkoroku)", tr Cleary, p 111)

 

 

Action by intention results in a circle of consequences that returns to the place of origin--that is to say, one hasn't moved a step, in the larger picture.

The presumption being, that action can take place without intention.  

The ouija board finished the post I've been quoting from, here:

 

A Way of Living

 

It's just a jumble of letters, sorry about that!

 

[liminal_luke]

45 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

The presumption being, that action can take place without intention.  
 

 

I love this.  To me it feels like spontaneity.  Is this wu-wei?

 

I think the truest actions spring forth from a deep place inside us.  Not sure if there's an intention or not but at least there's not the intention of the everyday figuring-things-out mind.

[liminal_luke]

22 minutes ago, Invisible Acropolis said:

 

its so simple... just stay in your lane... obey your own rules

 

otherwise you simply dont exist in any objective way beyond the purpose you were designed to serve

 

I'm not certain what you're trying to say here, Invisible Acropolis, but I've got a hunch you're not finding value in my posts.  If that's the case, I wonder if you're familiar with the site's ignore feature?  Feel free to try it out with me if you like.  I won't mind.

Edited May 17, 2023 by liminal_luke

[silent thunder]

@liminal_luke No sense that she's trying to communicate anything here my friend, aside from spilling her inner state onto anyone who'll pay attention.

 

I think Dionne Warwick nailed it in cases like this.  'Walk on by'. 

[doc benway]

Moderator Warning

 

@Invisible Acropolis

 

Your posts targeting @liminal_luke are offensive and unacceptable.

An apology is in order and you need to cease and desist.

If you would like to post here, please show everyone respect.

Thank you

Steve for the mod team