Emotions are the path

[dwai]

17 minutes ago, steve said:

Is thought primary or secondary?

Primary or secondary to what?

17 minutes ago, steve said:

Does thought create or comment?

Both

17 minutes ago, steve said:

Is there a distinction between knowing and thinking?

There is a kind of knowing that occurs without thought, but the recognition of that knowing requires thought. 

[doc benway]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

Primary or secondary to what?

Anything really but the question game up for me in the context of our discussion of emotion. Some seem to suggest that emotion arises from thought, others that thought comments on emotion. While we can certainly offer examples of each that seem plausible, I wonder if our answers go deep enough?

 

Quote

Both

Are you certain?

 

Quote

There is a kind of knowing that occurs without thought, but the recognition of that knowing requires thought. 

When you first recognized/knew the deeper truth of who you are, was thought required or did it come after, offering its commentary?

[doc benway]

42 minutes ago, dwai said:

I agree with that -- although, thoughts are patterns of consciousness, that appear in consciousness, are illuminated by consciousness, known to consciousness, and dissipate within consciousness. 

Isn't recognition a thought as well? Can you recognize without a thought? Can you tell me who you are, without thinking? 

 

Telling you who I am and knowing/recognizing who I am are two different things.

Knowing and recognition may be possible without conceptualization.

Of course it all depends on how we define our terms. 

 

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche recently offered a talk and guided meditation on the distinction between thought and non-conceptual awareness called Knowing vs Thinking: Direct Realization in Meditation. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but hope to do so today (I've got a rare day off work, YAY!)

 

Spoiler

https://cybersangha.net/knowing-vs-thinking/

 

 

[dwai]

25 minutes ago, steve said:

Anything really but the question game up for me in the context of our discussion of emotion. Some seem to suggest that emotion arises from thought, others that thought comments on emotion. While we can certainly offer examples of each that seem plausible, I wonder if our answers go deep enough?

Are consciousness and energy two separate entities?

25 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Are you certain?

Yes - in a transactional model. 

25 minutes ago, steve said:

 

When you first recognized/knew the deeper truth of who you are, was thought required or did it come after, offering its commentary?

Thoughta arises from that deeper truth. I am therefore I think.  But the self-reflexivity is the notion "I am". It is the first...this is called the "aham-sphurana"...I think it is the proto-thought  (the root of the mind, so to speak). 

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Telling you who I am and knowing/recognizing who I am are two different things.

Knowing and recognition may be possible without conceptualization.

Of course it all depends on how we define our terms. 

When I try to find out, all I get is silence and stillness. All I know is I am. 

3 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche recently offered a talk and guided meditation on the distinction between thought and non-conceptual awareness called Knowing vs Thinking: Direct Realization in Meditation. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but hope to do so today (I've got a rare day off work, YAY!)

 

  Hide contents

https://cybersangha.net/knowing-vs-thinking/

 

 

Thanks will give it a listen later tonight.  

[doc benway]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Thoughta arises from that deeper truth. I am therefore I think.  But the self-reflexivity is the notion "I am". It is the first...this is called the "aham-sphurana"...I think it is the proto-thought  (the root of the mind, so to speak). 

 

I'm referring more to the experience than the labels.

 

1 minute ago, dwai said:

When I try to find out, all I get is silence and stillness. All I know is I am. 

 

Is knowing "I am" a thought?

[Apech]

23 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I'm referring more to the experience than the labels.

 

 

Is knowing "I am" a thought?

 

 

There's something in even basic recognition or cognition which does not depend on serial thought at least.  Just as say, when you walk through the park you recognise a dog as a dog without running through an inventory of what constitutes a dog.  In fact if you ever try to construct an inventory of what anything actually is, a chair, a table or whatever you run into serious problems quite quickly.  And yet you easily see and recognise all those things and indeed ideas without trying.  This must come from consciousness itself.

 

While the nature of consciousness may be non conceptual, it is not a product of object based or imagined perception - that does not mean that it is, how would you say, blank.  It is more that it is illuminated or illustrated by all concepts.  If you came to be self-aware as consciousness then you would 'know thyself' without being bound by any particular form or name but at the same time not be an anonymous nothing.

 

 

[dwai]

28 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I'm referring more to the experience than the labels.

 

 

Is knowing "I am" a thought?

This describes it best to me — 

 

There sight travels not, nor speech, nor the mind. We know It not nor can distinguish how one should teach of It: for It is other than the known; It is there above the unknown. It is so we have heard from men of old who declared That to our understanding. 
 

(Kena Upanishad  1.3)

[doc benway]

Returning to “taking emotion as the path,” I thought to share a current practice, a core practice from dzogchen teachings.

 

Spoiler

Rest into the Nature of Mind, or your version of that, and work with emotion in the following way. Bring to mind, or notice the spontaneous arising of, a charged situation, fertile memory, worry, strained relationship, annoying pattern, challenging person, whatever occupies “me” in some way. Embody it fully, feeling it emotionally, physically, notice the story that wants to engage you... for a few moments; but minimize any internal chatter or intellectual engagement. Then look back at the sense of me that is experiencing all of that and open arms to that one, allow warmth to arise for that one, recognizing it is coming from a place of pain or vulnerability. Give it a luminous, spacious, warm hug. It can be hard at first to allow and accept that one as being a part of “me.” Then stay with that experience fully, openly, nakedly and non-conceptually for as long as it stays fresh and immediate. Allow the experience to dissolve naturally, which it invariably does provided we don’t engage conceptually. And if we do, simply notice and let it be, let it go. Then rest in the openness and freshness of being in its dissolution as long as possible or as long as you choose.

 

I imagine others have ways of practicing with emotion. I wonder if anyone wants to share?

[doc benway]

8 hours ago, dwai said:

There is a kind of knowing that occurs without thought, but the recognition of that knowing requires thought. 

Bön teachings say the self-knowing is not thought, the equivalent to what you’re saying for me seems like path rigpa. Knowing that has not fully liberated all obscurations... and likely won’t until death for all but Buddha.

 

7 hours ago, dwai said:

 Thoughta arises from that deeper truth. I am therefore I think.  But the self-reflexivity is the notion "I am". It is the first...this is called the "aham-sphurana"...I think it is the proto-thought  (the root of the mind, so to speak). 

We call it clarity, the clear aspect of emptiness.

 

6 hours ago, Apech said:

While the nature of consciousness may be non conceptual, it is not a product of object based or imagined perception - that does not mean that it is, how would you say, blank.  It is more that it is illuminated or illustrated by all concepts.  If you came to be self-aware as consciousness then you would 'know thyself' without being bound by any particular form or name but at the same time not be an anonymous nothing.

Bön defines that as clarity, a characteristic of the base. The closest we come to the base in life, according to the Bön ma gyud teachings is the clear light of sleep.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

I’ve written about the importance I place on emotions in various discussions scattered throughout this forum, including starting a topic a while back with the title, The Dao of Emotions. It’s an important subject because, to my mind, it’s handled badly by mainstream Daoism and Buddhism. To illustrate this, as is my want, I’ll expand on a quotation from Carl Jung. In “Memories, Dreams, Reflections” he writes about how he handled his almost overwhelming emotional reaction¹ to the deluge of images that welled up from his unconscious:

 

“I stood helpless before an alien world; everything in it seemed difficult and incomprehensible. I was living in a constant state of tension; often I felt as if gigantic blocks of stone were tumbling down upon me. One thunderstorm followed another…..I was frequently so wrought up that I had to do certain yoga exercises in order to hold my emotions in check. But since it was my purpose to know what was going on within myself, I would do these exercises only until I had calmed myself enough to resume my work with the unconscious. As soon as I had the feeling that I was myself again, I abandoned this restraint upon the emotions and allowed the images and inner voices to speak afresh. The Indian, on the other hand, does yoga exercises in order to obliterate completely the multitude of psychic contents and images.

 

To the extent that I managed to translate the emotions into images – that is to say, to find the images which were concealed in the emotions – I was inwardly calmed and reassured. Had I left those images hidden in the emotions, I might have been torn to pieces by them. There is a chance that I might have succeeded in splitting them off; but in that case I would inexorably have fallen into a neurosis and so been ultimately destroyed by them anyhow. As a result of my experiment I learned how helpful it can be, from the therapeutic point of view, to find the particular images which lie behind emotions.”

 

Although my way is not to translate my emotions into images as Jung does, I fully concur with him that the methods of Eastern traditions for dealing with emotions, including the well-known method of just witnessing emotions without engaging with them, while appropriate for anyone who has placed their trust in the guidance of a lineage, are inappropriate for those of us whose disposition is such that fate directs us to find our own individual path. For me, the vital questions are, “What is my psyche trying to tell me with this emotion? What significant content hidden within me does the emotion arise from? Not easy questions to answer because, by definition, its content that’s hidden from me. For that I need appropriate teachings, contact with other people, and a firm ming-xing practice. With those established, I’m still in the process of discovering the profound significance (and difficulty) of exploring the path of my emotions for navigating my way into my own personally appropriate connection with Spirit, with mind of Dao (daoxin 道心 ), or, to use Jung’s term, with Self.

 

All my life I’ve experienced powerful emotions. At times they tear me apart. Yet experience has shown me how Spirit can reveal itself through those cracks – through my inner fragmentation – along with the demons that live within my own unexplored shadow. And for those of us finding are own way, the distinction between gods and demons has to be found through individual exploration. An external moral code that speaks in generalisations does not suffice. I’ve experienced the truth of this saying: “Anything can be a path, even a demon. Anything can be a demon, even a path.”  Hence, I’ve had to do massive amounts of cleansing work – a process I’m still involved with. That’s how I hone my sensitivity so that I can directly feel what’s appropriate and what’s not in any given circumstance. It’s a path of purification through ongoing cycles of being torn apart and regathering myself. Painful at times for sure, but one guided by numinous insights.

 

My active practice, extending over the last three decades, has shown me how difficult it is to shift from an egocentric perspective to a Self-oriented perspective, yet attempting it is the meaningful core of my life.  It’s a path that continually takes me to the limit of my endurance. And in the final analysis, easy or difficult has no relevance. It’s the path Spirit has given me. To not explore it means a meaningless existence. And nothing could be more painful than a meaningless life, as I know firsthand from the experience of my younger self.

 

Note:

1.  Jung uses the term ‘emotion’ as a synonym with ‘affect’. For him, emotional reactions are marked by physical symptoms and disturbed thinking. And that’s the sense I use the term ‘emotion’ in my above account. He distinguishes ‘feeling’ from ‘affect’ in spite of the fact that the dividing line is fluid, since feeling, after obtaining a certain intensity, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect.  Furthermore, Jung considers the sense of feeling we all possess, so vital for anyone on a spiritual path, has become atrophied in our contemporary culture because of the massive emphasis on thinking.  (Incidentally, he defines the field of our consciousness with four attributes: thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation; all of which need to be developed for wholeness.)

 

 

[Bindi]

I agree with Jung that “the sense of feeling... has become atrophied in our contemporary culture because of the massive emphasis on thinking“, and I have thought about this quite a lot over time, and have come up with a theory to account for it. 
 

To my mind thinking may have started to become dominant when we began to communicate in complex sentences, thinking looks to me like a ‘superpower’, and so much has been accomplished because of it. But then the imbalance set in as emotions couldn’t accomplish all that thinking could accomplish and were accorded a second place. The cultural atrophying of the sense of feeling is noticed by some individuals, maybe even many, but only some individuals choose to actively fight against the lack of that flow, and they are the ones who are prepared to open themselves up to their vast store of unfelt emotions within. 

 

The question for me though is what might re-establishing emotional flow alongside our mental superpower look like? To my mind if speech caused us to evolve mentally, then there must be a counterbalancing evolution possible for the humble feeling. Once the normal atrophied sense of feeling is restored, what emotional superpower might then be realised? 

[Geof Nanto]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

The question for me though is what might re-establishing emotional flow alongside our mental superpower look like? To my mind if speech caused us to evolve mentally, then there must be a counterbalancing evolution possible for the humble feeling. Once the normal atrophied sense of feeling is restored, what emotional superpower might then be realised? 

 

A monster unless we individually come to terms with the darkness that lurks within us all. And that’s not something likely to happen in any significant way anytime soon, as these often-quoted words of Jung’s illustrate:

 

"Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of Western theosophy, but not the confrontation with the shadow and the world of darkness. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The later procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular." (I'd add: Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of much of contemporary spirituality.)

 

I’d say the art of amplifying feelings atrophied with the decline of shamanism. They had the ability, that was their science. For instance, they were able to create what the Tibetans call tulpas. (Recently mentioned in another discussion here and in the following few posts. I’d speculate that Alexandra David-Neel’s experience as recounted by Taomeow was the result of her having not come to terms with her shadow. That is, her tulpa was her shadow aspect come to life.) From my reading of history, the amplification of these dark feeling energies was pervasive in shamanism. For instance, they used these projections to do battle with other shamans, to maim and kill. That was certainly the case in Australia with Aboriginal shamans. Afterall we humans are primates with huge tribal and territorial instincts. These are our deepest feelings.

 

[Bindi]

16 minutes ago, Yueya said:

 

A monster unless we individually come to terms with the darkness that lurks within us all. And that’s not something likely to happen in any significant way anytime soon, as these often-quoted words of Jung’s illustrate:

 

"Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of Western theosophy, but not the confrontation with the shadow and the world of darkness. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The later procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular." (I'd add: Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of much of contemporary spirituality.)

 

I’d say the art of amplifying feelings atrophied with the decline of shamanism. They had the ability, that was their science. For instance, they were able to create what the Tibetans call tulpas. (Recently mentioned in another discussion here and in the following few posts. I’d speculate that Alexandra David-Neel’s experience as recounted by Taomeow was the result of her having not come to terms with her shadow. That is, her tulpa was her shadow aspect come to life.) From my reading of history, the amplification of these dark feeling energies was pervasive in shamanism. For instance, they used these projections to do battle with other shamans, to maim and kill. That was certainly the case in Australia with Aboriginal shamans. Afterall we humans are primates with huge tribal and territorial instincts. These are our deepest feelings.

 

Tulpas may be equated with the neidan ‘spirit child’ that is formed, which must be nurtured within and not let out until fully matured. Honestly, I think some ancient Chinese person did exactly this, and the echoes of it were captured in some of the oldest Chinese texts. 
 

I agree it has to be done in the right way, by going through the shadows and the world of darkness, knowing the white but keeping to the black, not seeking power, merely seeking emotional reintegration in the dark places until the light returns. When the motivation becomes muddied, maybe this is when the problems start. 

[Apech]

14 hours ago, Yueya said:

 

A monster unless we individually come to terms with the darkness that lurks within us all. And that’s not something likely to happen in any significant way anytime soon, as these often-quoted words of Jung’s illustrate:

 

"Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of Western theosophy, but not the confrontation with the shadow and the world of darkness. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The later procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular." (I'd add: Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of much of contemporary spirituality.)

 

I’d say the art of amplifying feelings atrophied with the decline of shamanism. They had the ability, that was their science. For instance, they were able to create what the Tibetans call tulpas. (Recently mentioned in another discussion here and in the following few posts. I’d speculate that Alexandra David-Neel’s experience as recounted by Taomeow was the result of her having not come to terms with her shadow. That is, her tulpa was her shadow aspect come to life.) From my reading of history, the amplification of these dark feeling energies was pervasive in shamanism. For instance, they used these projections to do battle with other shamans, to maim and kill. That was certainly the case in Australia with Aboriginal shamans. Afterall we humans are primates with huge tribal and territorial instincts. These are our deepest feelings.

 

 

I think there is a distinct advantage in shamanism in treating as real the space which is inhabited by thoughts, feelings and spirits of various kinds.  This makes it far more likely that you can arrive at the truth about how these things and emotions work.  It's true that there was a lot of darkness in old shamanism but that is only because their intent was skewed and so what they did with their powers was twisted by this.  In principle they were masterful.  But the things they did with this mastery were in the end either fruitless or mundane.   But I think the exceptions to this gave rise to yogic systems and internal alchemy and tantric Buddhism which maintained some of the approach with a new purpose.

 

 

[Nungali]

12 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I think there is a distinct advantage in shamanism in treating as real the space which is inhabited by thoughts, feelings and spirits of various kinds. 

 

You gave me a 'realisation clarity gong ' in my head   

 

Distinct advantage in treating a lot of things  'as real '   ( not  'as if real ' ) .

 

Even if I deny the existence of chi or ki  (due to personal experience, testing myself,  examining anecdotes, etc .  I can not deny that if I adopt  and practice the 'ki principles'   I have a distinct advantage  and result  (in M.A.) if I practice them anyway.

 

This plays a major part in my whole 'magical theory'  in that ' certain practices lead to certain results ' - any attempts at establishing some type of modern 'reality' to them is immaterial . That is not the purpose .

 

here we approach the essence of 'Daimonic Reality '   ( my old friend, again  )

 

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHdaimonicreality.htm

 

 

Also the bit I high lighted in your quote above  opens up a whole other  dimension about belief .  What if we objectively  USE our belief system / wiring  ( instead of just letting the system run , without realising its running )  .... use the system instead of it 'guiding' us ... in concert with the  above .

 

I know thats confusing for some .... I remember  here  a while back some poster was freakin out because I said  I believed that the world was created by a giant snake that is asleep under Uluru     I wasnt asserting 'thats how it is or was ' , I wasnt trying to nullify anyone else's belief about the  creation of the world . I even   IB ed  the  belief part .

 

Anyway, we all know our beliefs have little to do with reality  .... wait ....   we all know  some other people's beliefs have little to do with reality 

 

Quote

 

 

 

This makes it far more likely that you can arrive at the truth about how these things and emotions work.  It's true that there was a lot of darkness in old shamanism but that is only because their intent was skewed and so what they did with their powers was twisted by this.

 

I can understand that for  some ..... they seemed to have horrible societies . I might be a cultural anthropologist , but  certainly not a cultural apologist , and just cant get my head around  mass baby sacrifice    

 

but ...

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

  In principle they were masterful.  But the things they did with this mastery were in the end either fruitless or mundane.

 

 

All of them ?    I am thinking of  a culture  , led by shamanic knowledge that has survived  from pre 60.000 ya  through all sorts of climate change and environmental 'disasters'  without wrecking  their own environment that they where dependant on .

 

But Euros thought their 'existence'  was  fruitless and mundane .    Yet for the Aboriginal , pre invasion ,  their earthly mundane existence and enjoyment of simple primal pleasures was not separated  from any concept they had of 'heaven' or 'spirit' or even 'soul' .

 

 

Quote

 

 

   But I think the exceptions to this gave rise to yogic systems and internal alchemy and tantric Buddhism which maintained some of the approach with a new purpose.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure it gave rise to it , but  with a new purpose  and a totally different view about life .

 

 

..... thanks for the 'head gong '  .      

Edited September 22, 2020 by Nungali

[Apech]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

You gave me a 'realisation clarity gong ' in my head   

 

Distinct advantage in treating a lot of things  'as real '   ( not  'as if real ' ) .

 

Even if I deny the existence of chi or ki  (due to personal experience, testing myself,  examining anecdotes, etc .  I can not deny that if I adopt  and practice the 'ki principles'   I have a distinct advantage  and result  (in M.A.) if I practice them anyway.

 

This plays a major part in my whole 'magical theory'  in that ' certain practices lead to certain results ' - any attempts at establishing some type of modern 'reality' to them is immaterial . That is not the purpose .

 

here we approach the essence of 'Daimonic Reality '   ( my old friend, again  )

 

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHdaimonicreality.htm

 

 

Also the bit I high lighted in your quote above  opens up a whole other  dimension about belief .  What if we objectively  USE our belief system / wiring  ( instead of just letting the system run , without realising its running )  .... use the system instead of it 'guiding' us ... in concert with the  above .

 

I know thats confusing for some .... I remember  here  a while back some poster was freakin out because I said  I believed that the world was created by a giant snake that is asleep under Uluru     I wasnt asserting 'thats how it is or was ' , I wasnt trying to nullify anyone else's belief about the  creation of the world . I even   IB ed  the  belief part .

 

Anyway, we all know our beliefs have little to do with reality  .... wait ....   we all know  some other people's beliefs have little to do with reality 

 

 

I can understand that for  some ..... they seemed to have horrible societies . I might be a cultural anthropologist , but  certainly not a cultural apologist , and just cant get my head around  mass baby sacrifice    

 

but ...

 

 

 

 

All of them ?    I am thinking of  a culture  , led by shamanic knowledge that has survived  from pre 60.000 ya  through all sorts of climate change and environmental 'disasters'  without wrecking  their own environment that they where dependant on .

 

But Euros thought their 'existence'  was  fruitless and mundane .    Yet for the Aboriginal , pre invasion ,  their earthly mundane existence and enjoyment of simple primal pleasures was not separated  from any concept they had of 'heaven' or 'spirit' or even 'soul' .

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure it gave rise to it , but  with a new purpose  and a totally different view about life .

 

 

..... thanks for the 'head gong '  .      

 

No, I wasn't meaning all of them - but the context was the shadow side and so on - so that's what I addressed.

[Apech]

On 9/21/2020 at 2:55 AM, Bindi said:

Tulpas may be equated with the neidan ‘spirit child’ that is formed, which must be nurtured within and not let out until fully matured. Honestly, I think some ancient Chinese person did exactly this, and the echoes of it were captured in some of the oldest Chinese texts. 
 

I agree it has to be done in the right way, by going through the shadows and the world of darkness, knowing the white but keeping to the black, not seeking power, merely seeking emotional reintegration in the dark places until the light returns. When the motivation becomes muddied, maybe this is when the problems start. 

 

I think maybe, what separates us from ancient shamans (nod to Nungali that they do still exist) is that we journey to understand and not to gain powers.  Also we are a bit limited and much more tied to a rational core - a limit of belief or possibility perhaps.  But the advantage of this is that we can explore in a more controlled way?  More aqualung than old deep sea suits (?) - I won't stretch this analogy because I don't know anything about diving.

 

The other thing I wanted to dwell on is the difference between 'feeling' and 'emotion'.  We use the word feeling in a number of different ways - for instance the sense of touch, the physical sense is 'feeling', but on the other hand we say 'I feel a sense of awe' we don't mean touch of course.  In Buddhism there is verdana which is often translated as feeling or sensation but actually seems to mean like/dislike, attraction/aversion assessments.  Which is yet another use of feeling - 'I like it, I don't like it'.  In fact this like/dislike type assessment seems to be at the core of duality.  And to be the basis for emotionality - extreme aversion = hate and so on.

 

But I would prefer to reserve the word feeling to mean a basic sentience, consciousness before it becomes sufficiently differentiated or formed to be called thought.  While emotion is a movement of energy in response to stimulation of some kind which can become locked-in so to speak subconsciously, dormant until triggered by an event or situation.

 

Any thoughts?

[neti neti]

On 9/23/2020 at 7:54 AM, Apech said:

The other thing I wanted to dwell on is the difference between 'feeling' and 'emotion'.  We use the word feeling in a number of different ways - for instance the sense of touch, the physical sense is 'feeling', but on the other hand we say 'I feel a sense of awe' we don't mean touch of course.  In Buddhism there is verdana which is often translated as feeling or sensation but actually seems to mean like/dislike, attraction/aversion assessments.  Which is yet another use of feeling - 'I like it, I don't like it'.  In fact this like/dislike type assessment seems to be at the core of duality.  And to be the basis for emotionality - extreme aversion = hate and so on.

 

But I would prefer to reserve the word feeling to mean a basic sentience, consciousness before it becomes sufficiently differentiated or formed to be called thought.  While emotion is a movement of energy in response to stimulation of some kind which can become locked-in so to speak subconsciously, dormant until triggered by an event or situation.

 

Not "my" thoughts per se, but this snippet of commentary on the emotional body through a Nath yogi lens may give rise to further discussion.

 

Quote

Functions

The functions of the astral body may be roughly grouped under three headings:-

1. To make sensation possible.
2. To serve as a bridge between mind and physical matter.
3. To act as an independent vehicle of consciousness and action.

When man is analysed into "principles" ie. into modes of manifesting life, the four lower principles, sometimes termed the "Lower Quaternary" [they] are:-
1. Physical Body -2. Etheric Body -3. Prana, or Vitality - 4. Kama (Sanskrit), or Desire
The fourth principle, Kama, is the life manifesting in the astral body and [is] conditioned by it: its characteristic is the attribute of feeling, which in rudimentary form is sensation, and in complex form emotion, with many grades in between these two. This is sometimes summed up as desire, that which is attracted or repelled by objects, according as they give pleasure or pain.
Kama thus includes feelings of every kind, and might be described as the passional and emotional nature. It comprises all animal appetites, such as hunger, thirst, sexual desire: all passions, such as the lower forms of love, hatred, envy, jealousy; it is the desire for sentient existence, for experience of material joys.
Kama is the brute in us, the force which most avails to keep us bound to earth and to stifle in us all higher longings by the illusions of sense.
For our purposes desire and emotion are frequently used as practically synonymous: strictly, however, emotion is the product of desire and intellect.

Passing now to the second function of the astral body - to act as a bridge between mind and physical matter - we note that an impact on the physical senses is transmitted inwards by Prana, [and] becomes a sensation by the action of the sense-centres, which are situated in [the astral body], and is perceived then by Manas, or Mind. Thus without the general action through the astral body there would be no connection between the external world and the mind of man, no connection between physical impacts and the perception of them by the mind.
Whenever we think, we set in motion the mental matter within us; the vibrations thus generated are transferred to the matter of our astral body, the astral matter affects the etheric matter, this in turn, acting on the dense physical matter, the grey matter of the brain.
The astral body is thus a bridge between our physical and our mental life, serving as a transmitter of vibrations both from physical to mental and from mental to physical, and is, in fact, principally developed by this constant passage of vibrations to and fro. 6

 

 

Thought forms

>The mental and astral bodies are those chiefly concerned with the production of what are called thought-forms. The term thought- form is not wholly accurate, because the forms produced may be composed of mental matter, or, in the vast majority of cases, of both astral and mental matter.
A purely intellectually and impersonal thought - such as one concerned with algebra or geometry - would be confined to mental matter. If, on the other hand, the thought has in it something of selfish or personal desire, it will draw round itself astral matter in addition to the mental. If, furthermore, the thought be of a spiritual nature, if it be tinged with love and aspiration, or deep and unselfish feeling, then there may also enter in some of the splendour and glory of the buddhic plane.
Every definite thought produces two effects: first, a radiating vibration: second, a floating form.
The vibration set up in and radiating from the mental body is accompanied with a play of colour which has been described as like that in the spray of a waterfall as the sunlight strikes it, raised to the nth degree of colour and delicacy.
This radiating vibration tends to reproduce its own rate of motion in any mental body on which it may impinge: ie to produce thoughts of the same type as those from which the vibration originated. It should be noted that the radiating vibration carries, not the subject of the thought, but its character.
The power of the vibration to produce such effects depends principally upon the clearness and definiteness of the thought-emotion, as well, of course, as upon the amount of force put into it.
The distance to which a thought-wave can radiate effectively also depends upon the opposition with which it meets. Waves in the lower types of astral matter are usually soon deflected or overwhelmed by a multitude of other vibrations at the same level, just as a soft sound is drowned in the roar of a city.
If made of the finer kinds of matter, it will be of great power and energy, and may be used as a most potent agent when directed by a strong and steady will.

 

 

https://yogendranathyogi.blogspot.com/2010/12/emotionaldesire-body.html?m=1

[dwai]

 

Quote

 

 

Is knowing "I am" a thought?

This is a very interesting topic. I was reading a quote from Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche which states “the problem with western seekers, is that they want to experience their enlightenment”. I think it is not a specifically western phenomenon anymore — it is true for all modern/“scientific” minded people. The implication of that quote was that because we want to experience our enlightenment, we can never be enlightened because that which seeks to experience is the ego. So long as the ego tries, enlightenment cannot happen. 
 

The other thing to point out is what in Advaita Vedanta is called the chidābhāsa (reflected light). The “I am” is made up of three things — the thought - “I am”, which is the root of ego, the reflected light of pure consciousness, and pure consciousness (witness). That which we see/experience is the reflected consciousness in the surface of the mind, which we know as “I am” — a thought. That which knows, but cannot be known, is pure (witness) consciousness or Atman/Brahman. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by dwai

[Bindi]

Cleansox mentioned “insubstantial water” as being the substance worked with in neidan in another thread, instead of commenting on it in that thread I wanted to bring it here because in dream work water relates to the state of the emotions, dirty water, wild water, no water, it’s like an analogy for what I perceive as the emotional channel and the state of it. 
 

I don’t know if people who have studied under neidan masters would agree that “insubstantial water” = emotions, but I thought this was worth pursuing as part of this topic. 

[Apech]

9 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Cleansox mentioned “insubstantial water” as being the substance worked with in neidan in another thread, instead of commenting on it in that thread I wanted to bring it here because in dream work water relates to the state of the emotions, dirty water, wild water, no water, it’s like an analogy for what I perceive as the emotional channel and the state of it. 
 

I don’t know if people who have studied under neidan masters would agree that “insubstantial water” = emotions, but I thought this was worth pursuing as part of this topic. 

 

 

I think insubstantial water is a very good term for the mind-substance in which emotions operate.  Perhaps you could say the medium of emotional activity - something like that.

[Bindi]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I think insubstantial water is a very good term for the mind-substance in which emotions operate.  Perhaps you could say the medium of emotional activity - something like that.

Yes, I think so. It is also the medium in which alchemical things are produced, and it needs to be alchemically refined, but it is the foundation. This is also a point of difference between Buddhism and the older Neidan texts, the Buddhist lets the water settle and the mud sink to the bottom and then leaves the water unstirred, the old Daoist texts say clean or clear the ‘xin’/heart-mind. 
 

 

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

Yes, I think so. It is also the medium in which alchemical things are produced, and it needs to be alchemically refined, but it is the foundation. This is also a point of difference between Buddhism and the older Neidan texts, the Buddhist lets the water settle and the mud sink to the bottom and then leaves the water unstirred, the old Daoist texts say clean or clear the ‘xin’/heart-mind. 
 

 

 

I see what you mean - and it is true that beginner Buddhist would be taught like that - but in later stages, or at least in vajrayana there is a different approach.  I think the insubstantial water is essentially pure but is contaminated by our emotions.  One stage in dealing with this alchemically would be to let it settle but this would be followed by transformational processes.

 

From my own experience I would say that we have a bundle of emotions which we are particularly attached to - and we tend to rotate through them in certain moods or thoughts or states of being which have the effect of either agitating us or making us stuck.  Both have the effect of robbing us of an awareness of our true selves.  Releasing from the 'stuck' state is a heart thing - where if you get it right there is free circulation through all the centres and channels which lays the ground for integrating energy and awareness.

 

Something like that

 

 

[manitou]

On 9/24/2020 at 6:16 AM, dwai said:

 

This is a very interesting topic. I was reading a quote from Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche which states “the problem with western seekers, is that they want to experience their enlightenment”. I think it is not a specifically western phenomenon anymore — it is true for all modern/“scientific” minded people. The implication of that quote was that because we want to experience our enlightenment, we can never be enlightened because that which seeks to experience is the ego. So long as the ego tries, enlightenment cannot happen. 
 

The other thing to point out is what in Advaita Vedanta is called the chidābhāsa (reflected light). The “I am” is made up of three things — the thought - “I am”, which is the root of ego, the reflected light of pure consciousness, and pure consciousness (witness). That which we see/experience is the reflected consciousness in the surface of the mind, which we know as “I am” — a thought. That which knows, but cannot be known, is pure (witness) consciousness or Atman/Brahman. 

 

 

As I am experiencing it, the I Am is something that is realized rather than learned in a linear fashion.  All the books and study were necessary - at least they were in my case.  It was by seeing the common metaphysics that exist at the core of all traditions.  IMO, anything that doesn't reach the I Am, the realized knowledge of who we really are, is a path that stops prematurely.

 

The I Am consciousness is indescribable.  It snuck up gradually, didn't really enter all at once.  Once I realized who I was, it was overwhelming.  I felt connection with all life.  When in the consciousness, it's almost as though there is an emission, a radiation of light that extends out, who knows how far.  But learning to live with it is something that I will be doing for the rest of my life.  It is ours to wear, to have (after all, we are it) and to be the conduit for the I Am in this world, extending it outward always.

 

And once that I Am point is reached, it is an indication that ego is transcended while in consciousness.  'While in consciousness' is the challenge hitherto.  How often during the day do I remember Who I am?  More and more often, it seems.  My personal view is that it's not something that's easy to wear.  Often it runs cross-current to what people are doing.

 

And it's in this mindset, the I AM, that incredible things can be done and performed.  Just be careful not to take internal credit for what has happened - that reinforces the ego and works against us.  When in consciousness, 'Not-Doing' is always the preferable answer - just letting nature run its course.  But there is also a current of agape love that extends to everything and everyone.  The awakened one will know intuitively which way to go.

 

Great topic, Apech!