The Heart

[Kelly Jones]

From the Reincarnation thread:


Tharpa wrote:

T: "Compassion is Tenderness of heart. You say the Tao is possible without tenderness? With that sort of Tao, what petty larceny do you intend?"

K: The true heart is wisdom: the understanding of Ultimate Reality - which is absolutely rational, relying not on emotion at all.

T: True enlightened heart* is wisdom, compassion and power. [snip] * rough translation of bodhichitta, the two words therein meaning awake/conscious (bodhi) and mind/heart (chitta). Bodhichitta is the mahayana buddhist term for enlightened mind, or in shorthand: enlightenment, although that is a result term not an essence term.

I prefer to be much simpler.

Bodhicitta is the will to Ultimate Truth. It's a "mind" that has one sole virtue, namely, aspiring to Ultimate Truth.

The Buddha is Ultimate Truth. It is the "heart" of wisdom, because it's the core truth of all things.

Calling the Buddha the heart is just figurative. It doesn't mean that only things like vertebrates, annelids, mollusks, and arthropods are the Buddha.

Tharpa: True enlightened heart* is wisdom, compassion and power.

In Mahayana imagery this is exemplified as:

Manjusri, Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani.

This also relates to what are called respectively mind, speech and body.

Mind is beyond place and time, pure awareness/awakeness.
Body is place and time, or 'being'.
Speech joins the two - any two for that matter.

The sword of Manjusri is uncompromising faith in reason, cutting through all delusion. This is the same as samadhi (powerful, concentrated mind).

Such a mind is capable of realising non-attachment, which is compassion, or Avalokitesvara (transcendance above all attachment).

Only the mind of enlightenment (bodhicitta, will to Truth) will take up the sword of Manjusri. This is the same as Vajrapani (the uncompromising power that guides the mind to Truth).

Wisdom without heart has no being.

More clearly:

Without understanding the core truth of all life, there is no awareness of the Buddha.

Beings without heart have no wisdom.

All beings live and breathe because of the heart (Truth). But they aren't necessarily wise.

Wisdom only arises with: a great will to Truth (bodhicitta), a single-pointed focus (samadhi), and the intellectual capacity of a human (human realm birth).

Heart, in this context, has nothing to do with a muscular organ in a body necessarily.

Correct. It's a metaphor for "core" or "origin" or "centre".

Though just as it can be said that the seat of mind is the brain, so also could it be said that the seat of the heart is the heart.

By "mind", do you mean "citta" or "bodhi" or "consciousness" now?

Regardless, the location of anything is not the brain, since the brain is a finite thing and not everywhere. The location or source of anything is certainly Ultimate Truth.

And also it could be said that the seat of the body is here and now, which is why both wisdom and heart are found therein.

No, the heart (source) of being (all things) is still the Buddha. The heart cannot be found within the heart.

A perhaps interesting aside in terms of organs/the body in terms of this threefold matrix. Traditionally:

The brain/head relates to body;
The heart/chest relates to mind;
The throat relates to speech.

This does not help anyone to perceive the heart of all things.


.

[clyde]

Kelly;

I like simple too.

I believe that one awakens to wisdom and compassion; i.e., wisdom is realizing the truth and compassion is living the truth. Some people think it takes fearlessness to realize the truth. I think they are correct, but that it takes greater courage to live the truth.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Carl G]

From the Reincarnation thread:
The true heart is wisdom: the understanding of Ultimate Reality - which is absolutely rational, relying not on emotion at all.

Kelly Jones, further:

Bodhicitta is the will to Ultimate Truth. It's a "mind" that has one sole virtue, namely, aspiring to Ultimate Truth.

One word betrays you here, and that is "aspiring." Aspiring implies heart, and specifically emotion, something you appear to detest and seem to be attempting to build a case against. Against the neccessity for. But it is of no use. Emotion is here to stay. The only choice is with what cause to align it. I agree that one could not do better than to align one's heart with the quest for Truth. But one needs to accept this, not merely try to explain away heart by cleaving only to the specific meaning of it which defines "center" as opposed to, say, "courage" and "enthusiasm," both of which involve more than just the mind.

One needs to get one's heart behind it (the quest for Truth), in other words.

And, to use another meaning of heart while we're at it, having compassion for one's self and others ain't a bad thing either.

[tharpa]

well, in traditional Mahayana terms - from which the above type of portrayal comes - bodhicitta is described in this threefold way as wisdom compassion and power, in more sensitive language as prajna-intellect-mind, heart-compassion-sensitivity and energy-will-drive-fearlessnes and so forth.

The problem with definining it as the drive to Ultimate Truth alone is that this overly emphases the Manjusri/intellect side and also seems to be an attempt - as the last post indicates - to eradicate the human, or sentient, aspect of the whole thing.

Of course, you don't have to buy this approach. But then better not to adopt the term bodhicitta if you don't agree with how it is defined in the tradition which invented the term.

Another wrinkle: the two truths are really a heuristic device because of course they form a unity ultimately. There is only one 'truth'. The state of being unenlightened perceives absolute and relative truth as different. The enlightened state contains no such duality whatsoever, so defining bodhicitta as the drive to get from confusion to wisdom is relegating it to something without a fruitional nature. Since relative and absolute, and confusion and wisdom for that matter essentially are not two, so also bodhicitta includes all the elements present in the relative and confused levels, which most certainly do include emotions/feelings and suchlike in the experience of living beings, albeit without being channelled/imprisoned by the obscurations of ignorance/unenlightenment, the energies involves become open, expansive, 'liberated' and so forth, i.e. we are back to wisdom, compassion and power again, which is not the same as absolute truth at all, because bodhicitta involves states of experience/being, i.e. manifestation, not abstract principles alone.

[Kelly Jones]

Carl,

The true heart is wisdom: the understanding of Ultimate Reality - which is absolutely rational, relying not on emotion at all...... [snip] .....Bodhicitta is the will to Ultimate Truth. It's a "mind" that has one sole virtue, namely, aspiring to Ultimate Truth.

One word betrays you here, and that is "aspiring." Aspiring implies heart, and specifically emotion, something you appear to detest and seem to be attempting to build a case against. Against the neccessity for. But it is of no use. Emotion is here to stay. The only choice is with what cause to align it. I agree that one could not do better than to align one's heart with the quest for Truth. But one needs to accept this, not merely try to explain away heart by cleaving only to the specific meaning of it which defines "center" as opposed to, say, "courage" and "enthusiasm," both of which involve more than just the mind.

I happened to be thinking about the word "courage" today. It comes from core (heart). Now, why would the heart be symbolic for courage? My opinion is that a bigger heart gives one a survival advantage, carrying more oxygen and glucose around the body faster than in an ordinary heart.

The heart grows bigger on demand, just like any muscle. On the battle-field, the most courageous warrior is generally the fittest - through having "aspired" or trained the heart to bear more strain. Athletes "aspire" to a high state of biomechanical and psychological efficiency, including training the mind to block out emotional stress. These types of training try to minimise cardiac dysfunction. Arrythmias, for instance, that are caused by emotional stress.

This seems to indicate that emotions and courage are at odds.

One needs to get one's heart behind it (the quest for Truth), in other words.

I agree with trading an unhelpful addiction for a helpful one.

So long as one doesn't start taking smaller and smaller doses of "helpful" things.

I don't detest emotion (that would be self-defeating). It's just bad for my heart (arrhythmias).

And, to use another meaning of heart while we're at it, having compassion for one's self and others ain't a bad thing either.

Attachments are the source of aggressive tunnel-vision, and striking out in blind fear to prevent imagined loss.

So compassion and non-attachment go together.

I don't believe there's any emotion in non-attachment.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharpa,

well, in traditional Mahayana terms - from which the above type of portrayal comes - bodhicitta is described in this threefold way as wisdom compassion and power, in more sensitive language as prajna-intellect-mind, heart-compassion-sensitivity and energy-will-drive-fearlessnes and so forth.

Would you care responding to the reasoning i presented, please?

I tire easily of repeated statements that lack explanation.

The problem with definining it as the drive to Ultimate Truth alone is that this overly emphases the Manjusri/intellect side and also seems to be an attempt - as the last post indicates - to eradicate the human, or sentient, aspect of the whole thing.

The intellect makes sentience meaningful. There is no human without the intellect.

Similarly, there is no meaning to Ultimate Truth without the intellect.

Of course, you don't have to buy this approach. But then better not to adopt the term bodhicitta if you don't agree with how it is defined in the tradition which invented the term.

I invented the term. I agree with that type of tradition.

Another wrinkle: the two truths are really a heuristic device because of course they form a unity ultimately.

What two truths are you referring to?

There is only one 'truth'. The state of being unenlightened perceives absolute and relative truth as different.

But they are different.

The enlightened state contains no such duality whatsoever, so defining bodhicitta as the drive to get from confusion to wisdom is relegating it to something without a fruitional nature.

What is a "fruitional nature"?

Are you saying that there is no need to value truth ?

Since relative and absolute, and confusion and wisdom for that matter essentially are not two, so also bodhicitta includes all the elements present in the relative and confused levels,

By this reasoning, you could also conclude that a stuffed bird includes all the elements present in the bucket of dirty nappies. But that would be erroneous, since it doesn't.

which most certainly do include emotions/feelings and suchlike in the experience of living beings, albeit without being channelled/imprisoned by the obscurations of ignorance/unenlightenment,

How complicated your expression is!

What do you think causes emotion to arise?

the energies involves become open, expansive, 'liberated' and so forth,

What "energies" are these?

i.e. we are back to wisdom, compassion and power again, which is not the same as absolute truth at all, because bodhicitta involves states of experience/being, i.e. manifestation, not abstract principles alone.

Are you saying that "states of experience/being" exclude absolute truth?

[Carl G]

I happened to be thinking about the word "courage" today. It comes from core (heart). Now, why would the heart be symbolic for courage? My opinion is that a bigger heart gives one a survival advantage, carrying more oxygen and glucose around the body faster than in an ordinary heart.

The heart grows bigger on demand, just like any muscle. On the battle-field, the most courageous warrior is generally the fittest - through having "aspired" or trained the heart to bear more strain. Athletes "aspire" to a high state of biomechanical and psychological efficiency, including training the mind to block out emotional stress. These types of training try to minimise cardiac dysfunction. Arrythmias, for instance, that are caused by emotional stress.

I like your theory, though I don't think there is any getting around the emotional aspect of courage. Warriors even back in the days of personal combat had to have more than simply a strong heart. They had to have will. Part of the fuel for will is emotion -- a love of family, country, one's fellow warrior. Even today, in the age of guns and buttons, courage/heart is still experienced -- it is not an archaic feeling -- and it is not regulated by biological size heart of body or mere stamina of body. Courage is experienced by people in all walks of life, often in spite of a lack of the above.

This seems to indicate that emotions and courage are at odds.

Given your own stated heart condition, it is understandable that you might a) value logic over emotion, and b) equate courage with heart size rather than with emotion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

My opinion is that a bigger heart gives one a survival advantage, carrying more oxygen and glucose around the body faster than in an ordinary heart.

The heart grows bigger on demand, just like any muscle.

The heart does grow bigger on demand, like any muscle, but it does not give a person a survival advantage. It onlly grows bigger to meet the demands of the body (and often to make up for a defect in the heart itself), and its enlarged size causes additional problems.

Your opinion is based on folklore, not reality. Here's a link to back up my statements:
cardiomegaly

[tharpa]

As far as I know, Kelly, I was responding to your logic. Where you felt that I wasn't, you could provide specific commentary to make yr point clear.

The two truths are absolute and relative truth. You have posited absolute truth as something which exists on its own, so to speak. In fact, it exists only in comparison to relative truth; and in fact neither exist at all. The only way we discriminate between the unversal and the particular, for example (which are parallel dynamics on the relative/physical level), is because of the cognitive capabilities, including logic and intellect, of individuated mindstreams. This type of intellect is a sub-function of Mind/Consciousness, by definition a relative-level function, and therefore although it can accurately deduce the notion of absolute versus relative, it is only from the relative point of view that such distinctions can be made. Absolute truth, therefore, is just as false as relative truth since from the point of view of absolute truth there is no difference between them and the point of view of relative, the absolute cannot be experienced as such.

In any case, the point was that bodhichitta involves heart which also involves feeling, warmth and other core human experiences. Wisdom without heart/compassion is impossible.

Other descriptions go like this: 'it's nature is mercy, therefore it has the warmth of a pigeon's heart'; it's nature is fearlessness, therefore it is cool like a rocky highland spring; it's nature is intelligence, therefore it throbs like a living heart.' You can see from this description how 'sentient' the notion is rather than abstract or intellectual alone.

My take on the word 'courage' is that it combines 'coeur' (heart) with rage (rage), so it probably derived from battlefield notions of courage. I believe that 'wrath' is also from the same root.

With emotion, there is both conflicted and liberated emotion, and of course this is a large topic on its own. Simply put, compassion/wisdom/power is selfish types of emotion liberated. Without the conflict - which comes from the conflict of maintaining individual territory for selfish purposes - the energy involved in that conflict is free to expand into generosity. (These are the 'energies' you were asking about.) It is also very good for the health as well as the physical organ known as the heart.

Wrath is a somewhat honorifically expressed form for anger. Crude anger is highly conflicted, whereas the wrath of a king or lord or brave warrior in battle is less conflicted and more unleashed, fearless, i.e. anger let loose. This is an example again of how energies shift depending upon motivation etc.

Part of the reason my style is complicated is that I find it better often to put two words rather than one because people tend to fixate on one word as if it indicates a definitive, solid meaning, whereas this is rarely the case and therefore I provide different shades to indicate the flexibility of the point/word in question. Also, I am often mentally translating from terms used in other traditions that don't have exact english equivalents and/or whose commonly used english equivalents might be misleading when used without special definition, something which is too cumbersome in practice on a public bulletin board.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharpa wrote:

As far as I know, Kelly, I was responding to your logic. Where you felt that I wasn't, you could provide specific commentary to make yr point clear.

Ok. Here is some specific commentary to refresh the memory and make my point clear:

You're defining the Buddha (the "heart", or core, of wisdom) to be "compassion" and "sensitivity". You object to defining "bodhicitta" (Buddha-mind, or mind of enlightenment) as an uncompromising will to Ultimate Truth.

Your reasoning is as follows:

[defining bodhicitta as will to Ultimate Truth] overly emphases the Manjusri/intellect side and also seems to be an attempt to eradicate the human, or sentient, aspect of the whole thing.

Since relative and absolute, and confusion and wisdom for that matter essentially are not two, so also bodhicitta includes all the elements present in the relative and confused levels, which most certainly do include emotions/feelings and suchlike in the experience of living beings, albeit without being channelled/imprisoned by the obscurations of ignorance/unenlightenment, the energies involves become open, expansive, 'liberated' and so forth, i.e. we are back to wisdom, compassion and power again, which is not the same as absolute truth at all, because bodhicitta involves states of experience/being, i.e. manifestation, not abstract principles alone.

bodhichitta involves heart which also involves feeling, warmth and other core human experiences. Wisdom without heart/compassion is impossible.

The problem i see in your reasoning is that you postulate that the will to Truth is equal (or perhaps lesser) in value than the will to emotion.

This is a major problem, because there can be no certainty, and therefore no wisdom, without being most motivated by the idea of ultimate truth.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharpa wrote:

The two truths are absolute and relative truth. You have posited absolute truth as something which exists on its own, so to speak. In fact, it exists only in comparison to relative truth; and in fact neither exist at all.

I think you're saying that, since the absoluteness of absolute logical truths only has meaning in relation to relativeness, therefore any absolutely true statement is true only when relatively true.

Take A=A for example. Is it true because A=not-B, or because A=A?

The only way we discriminate between the unversal and the particular, for example (which are parallel dynamics on the relative/physical level), is because of the cognitive capabilities, including logic and intellect, of individuated mindstreams. This type of intellect is a sub-function of Mind/Consciousness, by definition a relative-level function, and therefore although it can accurately deduce the notion of absolute versus relative, it is only from the relative point of view that such distinctions can be made. Absolute truth, therefore, is just as false as relative truth since from the point of view of absolute truth there is no difference between them and the point of view of relative, the absolute cannot be experienced as such.

This reasoning is internally contradictory. It states that all discrimination comes from a "relative point of view" yet also states (using discrimination) what absolute truth is, and also, what the absolute point of view is.

The thing is, all truths are absolutely true. Relative truths are absolutely relative truths. Falsehoods are absolutely false. And uncertainties are absolutely uncertain.

Discriminations and distinctions are always absolute, because they refer to something that is itself and nothing else. There's no other way to understand and experience the nature of Ultimate Reality, except by accepting that it is exactly what it is.

In any case, the point was that bodhichitta involves heart which also involves feeling, warmth and other core human experiences. Wisdom without heart/compassion is impossible.

Do you know with certainty that the mind that orients to Buddhahood includes these things? How?

Other descriptions go like this: 'it's nature is mercy, therefore it has the warmth of a pigeon's heart'; it's nature is fearlessness, therefore it is cool like a rocky highland spring; it's nature is intelligence, therefore it throbs like a living heart.' You can see from this description how 'sentient' the notion is rather than abstract or intellectual alone.

Yet this description, whoever wrote it, relies on the intellect to identify things. Even if the author is saying that these statements are only true when one feels pleasant and happy, and false when one is suffering, he is still relying --- albeit badly --- on logic.

I think the description is next-to-worthless, though.

My take on the word 'courage' is that it combines 'coeur' (heart) with rage (rage), so it probably derived from battlefield notions of courage. I believe that 'wrath' is also from the same root.

I wouldn't advise tampering with etymology. The history of meanings is fascinating, and reveals lots about human psychology.

From dictionary.com:

[Courage] Origin: 1250–1300; ME corage < OF, equiv. to cuer heart (< L cor; see heart) + -age -age

ME = Middle English, OF = Old French, L = Latin

-age

a suffix typically forming mass or abstract nouns from various parts of speech, occurring originally in loanwords from French (voyage; courage) and productive in English with the meanings “aggregate” (coinage; peerage; trackage), “process” (coverage; breakage), “the outcome of” as either “the fact of” or “the physical effect or remains of” (seepage; wreckage; spoilage), “place of living or business” (parsonage; brokerage), “social standing or relationship” (bondage; marriage; patronage), and “quantity, measure, or charge” (footage; shortage; tonnage; towage).

[Origin: ME < OF < L -āticum, neut. of -āticus adj. suffix; an extension of L -āta -ate1, whose range of senses it reflects closely]

Courage is therefore cour + age, meaning something like "heart-ed", or "the result of heart having happened". The Latin -ata or -ate is the perfect tense form of a verb.

[edit: For some odd reason, the post-editor cuts off the first a in -ata and -ate. I've tried adding a space after the italics code, but had no success. If you wish to check the dictionary, the link i gave above goes to this particular entry]


From the same dictionary:

Wrath

[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME wraththe, OE wrǣththo, equiv. to wrāth wroth + -tho -th1; (adj.) var. of wroth by assoc. with the n.]

Wroth

[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE wrāth; c. D wreed cruel, ON reithr angry; akin to writhe]

So courage and wrath aren't related.

With emotion, there is both conflicted and liberated emotion, and of course this is a large topic on its own. Simply put, compassion/wisdom/power is selfish types of emotion liberated. Without the conflict - which comes from the conflict of maintaining individual territory for selfish purposes - the energy involved in that conflict is free to expand into generosity. (These are the 'energies' you were asking about.) It is also very good for the health as well as the physical organ known as the heart.

Are you saying that wisdom is an emotion that arises when there is no self-driven thoughts? If so, what is the self you're referring to?

Also, it sounds as though you verify wisdom with good health. Why?

You're starting to sound New-Agey. Do you really think "energies" are reliable? Why?

Wrath is a somewhat honorifically expressed form for anger. Crude anger is highly conflicted, whereas the wrath of a king or lord or brave warrior in battle is less conflicted and more unleashed, fearless, i.e. anger let loose. This is an example again of how energies shift depending upon motivation etc.

What's your reasoning to support this implication, that energy indicates the presence or absence of wisdom? I define wisdom as understanding what is ultimately and absolutely true, by the way. I'm not interested in something that relies on the existence or behaviour of something else to be true.

Part of the reason my style is complicated is that I find it better often to put two words rather than one because people tend to fixate on one word as if it indicates a definitive, solid meaning, whereas this is rarely the case and therefore I provide different shades to indicate the flexibility of the point/word in question. Also, I am often mentally translating from terms used in other traditions that don't have exact english equivalents and/or whose commonly used english equivalents might be misleading when used without special definition, something which is too cumbersome in practice on a public bulletin board.

Every meaning as soon as it appears in consciousness has a definitive, solid meaning. When additional information is added, that alters the meaning to something else, which is still definitive and solid. This is very simple.

Note that a complicated style is very simply itself, a complicated style.

I appreciate your effort to clarify your definitions. Translating shouldn't add complexity, since consciousness creates languages.



[edit: bbcode; edit: spacing; edit: comment after "-age" quote]

[Kelly Jones]

Elizabeth wrote:

My opinion is that a bigger heart gives one a survival advantage, carrying more oxygen and glucose around the body faster than in an ordinary heart. The heart grows bigger on demand, just like any muscle.

Elizabeth: The heart does grow bigger on demand, like any muscle, but it does not give a person a survival advantage. It onlly grows bigger to meet the demands of the body (and often to make up for a defect in the heart itself), and its enlarged size causes additional problems.

Your opinion is based on folklore, not reality.

I was thinking of Lance Armstrong, actually:

Training methodology and preparation

Armstrong has clearly triumphed at least partly because he learned to apply the obsessive focus he developed fighting cancer to making a career of winning the Tour de France, training in Spain for months leading up to the Tour de France and making frequent trips to France to fully analyze and ride key parts of the upcoming Tour de France course.

That he focuses solely on the Tour De France and seldom competes in other major races allows him to train 342 days a year for the 23 days of the Tour, a significantly greater training time than riders who compete in other races.


Riding style

He has an extremely high aerobic threshold and therefore can maintain a higher cadence (often 120 rpm) in a lower gear than his competitors, most noticeably in the time trials. This style is in direct contrast to previous champions (e.g. Jan Ullrich and Miguel Indurain) who used a high gear and brute strength to win time trials. It is believed that a high cadence results in less fatigue in the leg muscles than a lower cadence requiring more severe leg muscle contractions. Ultimately the cardiovascular system is worked to a greater extent with a high cadence than with a lower, more muscular cadence. Because the leg muscles are taxed less with a high cadence pedaling style, they recover faster and the efforts can be sustained for longer periods of time. Armstrong dedicated a significant portion of his training to developing and maintaining a very efficient high cadence style.



Rare athletic physical attributes
All top cyclists have excellent physical attributes. Armstrong is no exception, although in one way, he may be unusual even for an elite athlete. He is near but not at the top aerobically, having a VO2 Max of 83.8 mL/kg/min — much higher than the average person (40-50) but not as high as that of some other elite cyclists, such as Miguel Indurain (88.0, although reports exist that Indurain tested at 92-94) or Greg LeMond (92.5).[1] His heart is 30 percent larger than average; however, an enlarged heart is a common trait for many other athletes. He has a resting heart rate of 32-34 beats per minute with a max heart rate at 201 bpm.[2] Armstrong's most unusual attribute may be his low lactate levels. During intense training, the levels of most racers range from 12 μL/kg to as much as 20 μL/kg; Armstrong doesn't go above 6 μL/kg. The result is that less lactic acid accumulates in Armstrong's system, therefore it is possible that he feels less fatigue from severe efforts and this may contribute to his ability to sustain the same level of physical effort as other elite racers with less fatigue and faster recovery times. Some theorize that his high pedaling cadence is designed to take advantage of this low lactate level. In contrast, other cyclists — like Jan Ullrich — rely on their anaerobic capacity, pushing a larger gear at a lower rate. Further improvements in Armstrong's physical attributes and performance have been attributed to training induced increases in his muscular efficiency indicating changes in muscle myosin type.

The reason why i relate courage and cardiovascular fitness is primarily because physiological fitness implies a very strong will to win, ie. to dominate all odds, without compromise.



[edit: bbcode]

[Kelly Jones]

Correction:

It may be helpful to look at the history of classy warriors, but this focusses too much on physical combat -- the animal. If it were relevant to bodhicitta, then any wise individual would have to have aerobic and metabolic fitness as well. This just gets silly.

I think it's important to remember here that the heart was believed to be the seat of consciousness up until the time of Hippocrates and Galen. So, in fact, the warrior's heart is actually intellectual more than anything.


.

[tharpa]

Kelly, I will try to respond to your long, well-worked post later.

[tharpa]

Tharpa wrote:

As far as I know, Kelly, I was responding to your logic. Where you felt that I wasn't, you could provide specific commentary to make yr point clear.

Ok. Here is some specific commentary to refresh the memory and make my point clear:

You're defining the Buddha (the "heart", or core, of wisdom) to be "compassion" and "sensitivity". You object to defining "bodhicitta" (Buddha-mind, or mind of enlightenment) as an uncompromising will to Ultimate Truth.

Your reasoning is as follows:

[defining bodhicitta as will to Ultimate Truth] overly emphases the Manjusri/intellect side and also seems to be an attempt to eradicate the human, or sentient, aspect of the whole thing.

Since relative and absolute, and confusion and wisdom for that matter essentially are not two, so also bodhicitta includes all the elements present in the relative and confused levels, which most certainly do include emotions/feelings and suchlike in the experience of living beings, albeit without being channelled/imprisoned by the obscurations of ignorance/unenlightenment, the energies involves become open, expansive, 'liberated' and so forth, i.e. we are back to wisdom, compassion and power again, which is not the same as absolute truth at all, because bodhicitta involves states of experience/being, i.e. manifestation, not abstract principles alone.

bodhichitta involves heart which also involves feeling, warmth and other core human experiences. Wisdom without heart/compassion is impossible.

The problem i see in your reasoning is that you postulate that the will to Truth is equal (or perhaps lesser) in value than the will to emotion.

This is a major problem, because there can be no certainty, and therefore no wisdom, without being most motivated by the idea of ultimate truth.

The point mainly is that a will to absolute truth ( forget about the relative-absolute business ) is not the only thing going on with bodhichitta, which is traditionally defined as heart-wisdom, or at least the heart principle is always there.

I object to your saying I am comparing 'the will to Truth' with 'the will to emotion'. They were not my words at all. Actually, the 'will' part is the 'power' aspect in the three-fold definition of wisdom, compassion and power. Once could say 'drive', 'will', ability to manifest, actualise etc. So will is part of the equation, although part of the switcheroo aspect in path/journey terms is that there is a difference between selfish-oriented will and openness-wisdom oriented will.

Bodhichitta is often characterised as being based on 'the seed of enlightenment' or 'the womb of enlightenment', i.e. tathathagharba (womb), and in this sense there is indeed a will to evolve towards unfettered goodness or wisdom.

In terms of emotions, perhaps one could say that ordinary self-centred emotions (the way we usually discuss them) comprise the same energies that later blossom into unleashed wisdom and compassion. Energy can be used to close or open a fist. Something like that.

[tharpa]

Tharpa wrote:

The two truths are absolute and relative truth. You have posited absolute truth as something which exists on its own, so to speak. In fact, it exists only in comparison to relative truth; and in fact neither exist at all.

I think you're saying that, since the absoluteness of absolute logical truths only has meaning in relation to relativeness, therefore any absolutely true statement is true only when relatively true.

Take A=A for example. Is it true because A=not-B, or because A=A?

It has been too long since I read about the A=A logic and confess I am not sure exactly what it means. My sense is that it is something similar to: at first you see river and think it is solid. Then you deconstruct it and realise that a river is not a river. But then you realise that, deconstructed or not, one still perceives a river, so a river is a river, A = A. But perhaps that is not the sense of it at all?

But I do not really understand the notion of an absolutely true 'statement'. This is a thread about 'heart'. My main point is simply that heart involves somewhat mushy, tender, warm, experiential aspects, not cold logic alone.

The only way we discriminate between the unversal and the particular, for example (which are parallel dynamics on the relative/physical level), is because of the cognitive capabilities, including logic and intellect, of individuated mindstreams. This type of intellect is a sub-function of Mind/Consciousness, by definition a relative-level function, and therefore although it can accurately deduce the notion of absolute versus relative, it is only from the relative point of view that such distinctions can be made. Absolute truth, therefore, is just as false as relative truth since from the point of view of absolute truth there is no difference between them and the point of view of relative, the absolute cannot be experienced as such.

This reasoning is internally contradictory. It states that all discrimination comes from a "relative point of view" yet also states (using discrimination) what absolute truth is, and also, what the absolute point of view is.

The thing is, all truths are absolutely true. Relative truths are absolutely relative truths. Falsehoods are absolutely false. And uncertainties are absolutely uncertain.

Discriminations and distinctions are always absolute, because they refer to something that is itself and nothing else. There's no other way to understand and experience the nature of Ultimate Reality, except by accepting that it is exactly what it is.

Fair enough. Then I shall drop using the terms absolute and relative in terms of how they are used in buddhist jargon involving the two truths because your use of the terms is quite different. But what you say makes quite a bit of sense. No problem.

In any case, the point was that bodhichitta involves heart which also involves feeling, warmth and other core human experiences. Wisdom without heart/compassion is impossible.

Do you know with certainty that the mind that orients to Buddhahood includes these things? How?

Other descriptions go like this: 'it's nature is mercy, therefore it has the warmth of a pigeon's heart'; it's nature is fearlessness, therefore it is cool like a rocky highland spring; it's nature is intelligence, therefore it throbs like a living heart.' You can see from this description how 'sentient' the notion is rather than abstract or intellectual alone.

Yet this description, whoever wrote it, relies on the intellect to identify things. Even if the author is saying that these statements are only true when one feels pleasant and happy, and false when one is suffering, he is still relying --- albeit badly --- on logic.

I think the description is next-to-worthless, though.

Well, the fact that something relies upon intellect doesn't mean that intellect is the only thing involved. That is the point.

My take on the word 'courage' is that it combines 'coeur' (heart) with rage (rage), so it probably derived from battlefield notions of courage. I believe that 'wrath' is also from the same root.

I wouldn't advise tampering with etymology. The history of meanings is fascinating, and reveals lots about human psychology.

From dictionary.com:

[Courage] Origin: 1250–1300; ME corage < OF, equiv. to cuer heart (< L cor; see heart) + -age -age

ME = Middle English, OF = Old French, L = Latin

-age

a suffix typically forming mass or abstract nouns from various parts of speech, occurring originally in loanwords from French (voyage; courage) and productive in English with the meanings “aggregate” (coinage; peerage; trackage), “process” (coverage; breakage), “the outcome of” as either “the fact of” or “the physical effect or remains of” (seepage; wreckage; spoilage), “place of living or business” (parsonage; brokerage), “social standing or relationship” (bondage; marriage; patronage), and “quantity, measure, or charge” (footage; shortage; tonnage; towage).

[Origin: ME < OF < L -āticum, neut. of -āticus adj. suffix; an extension of L -āta -ate1, whose range of senses it reflects closely]

Courage is therefore cour + age, meaning something like "heart-ed", or "the result of heart having happened". The Latin -ata or -ate is the perfect tense form of a verb.

[edit: For some odd reason, the post-editor cuts off the first a in -ata and -ate. I've tried adding a space after the italics code, but had no success. If you wish to check the dictionary, the link i gave above goes to this particular entry]


From the same dictionary:

Wrath

[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME wraththe, OE wrǣththo, equiv. to wrāth wroth + -tho -th1; (adj.) var. of wroth by assoc. with the n.]

Wroth

[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE wrāth; c. D wreed cruel, ON reithr angry; akin to writhe]

So courage and wrath aren't related.

Very well argued. I liked my speculations, but concede they may have been etymologically challenged. I still find the words rage and wrath very close and doubt they are unrelated altogether. Even if they are etymologically, meaningwise they are close. But if courage has nothing to do with rage, fine. Also, the points about heightened aspects of certain emotions remain even if the etymological flourish was incorrect.

With emotion, there is both conflicted and liberated emotion, and of course this is a large topic on its own. Simply put, compassion/wisdom/power is selfish types of emotion liberated. Without the conflict - which comes from the conflict of maintaining individual territory for selfish purposes - the energy involved in that conflict is free to expand into generosity. (These are the 'energies' you were asking about.) It is also very good for the health as well as the physical organ known as the heart.

Are you saying that wisdom is an emotion that arises when there is no self-driven thoughts? If so, what is the self you're referring to?

Well, I am saying that the energy in the emotions is fundamentally the same as the energy in wisdom. This is why it iis said, for example, that the only difference between a Buddha and a sentient being (i.e. samsaric being) is that the Buddha accurately perceives the samsaric process at work. That moment/process of seeing confusion clearly is wisdom, it is not that wisdom is a whole separate plane of existence that exists on the other side of an apartheid wall.

Also, it sounds as though you verify wisdom with good health. Why?

That was just an aside, not a blanket generalisation. But generally speaking, those who are truly wise are truly at ease, and those who are at ease are basically healthy. The entire asian medical tradition is based on this simple observation.

You're starting to sound New-Agey. Do you really think "energies" are reliable? Why?

I don't remember categorising 'energies as reliable', but certainly energy is involved in living versus not living. There is a lively, quivering quality about being alive. The heart beats, for example, limbs move etc. Energy is a very vague word. My understanding of 'New Age' is some sort of naive optimism that anyone can attain a 'higher' state of being wherein all will go swimmingly well. Wisdom involves working with endless confused people who are in conflict and pain. In fact, it involves feeling pain far more, without the usual anaesthetic of discursive/confused states of (animal and lower) realmic approaches of all sorts. Being fully naked.

(tharpa) Wrath is a somewhat honorifically expressed form for anger. Crude anger is highly conflicted, whereas the wrath of a king or lord or brave warrior in battle is less conflicted and more unleashed, fearless, i.e. anger let loose. This is an example again of how energies shift depending upon motivation etc.

What's your reasoning to support this implication, that energy indicates the presence or absence of wisdom? I define wisdom as understanding what is ultimately and absolutely true, by the way. I'm not interested in something that relies on the existence or behaviour of something else to be true.

I didn't say above thath 'energy indicates the presence or absence of wisdom.' I said that the same energy that is constricted and contained, let us say, in confused states, is liberated in enlightened states.

Also, if you are not interested in something that relies on something else, then you are not interested in anything governed by the law of cause and effect. Are you saying that heart, or experience, for that matter, is not of interest to you, or are you saying that 'heart' (the thread topic) is beyond cause and effect, i.e. something only absolute?

To go back to traditional buddhist notions, what I described above was 'relative bodhichitta' in terms of intelligence, compassion and fearlessness etc. (which you found somewhat useless), but absolute bodhichitta is described as unborn, unceasing and unlimited. From that arises birth, death and territory/definitions.

Part of the reason my style is complicated is that I find it better often to put two words rather than one because people tend to fixate on one word as if it indicates a definitive, solid meaning, whereas this is rarely the case and therefore I provide different shades to indicate the flexibility of the point/word in question. Also, I am often mentally translating from terms used in other traditions that don't have exact english equivalents and/or whose commonly used english equivalents might be misleading when used without special definition, something which is too cumbersome in practice on a public bulletin board.

Every meaning as soon as it appears in consciousness has a definitive, solid meaning. When additional information is added, that alters the meaning to something else, which is still definitive and solid. This is very simple.

Note that a complicated style is very simply itself, a complicated style.

I appreciate your effort to clarify your definitions. Translating shouldn't add complexity, since consciousness creates languages.

I find much of what you say extremely complex because of the mixing of terminology that means different things in different contexts. But I try to work with it rather than critiquing the interlocutor overmuch, yet at the same time engaging in an exchange of views.

Of course it is always best to make any point as simply as possible and I could do better. But just making simple points alone doesn't always cut the mustard, i.e. just because they are simple (non-complex) doesn't make them pithy necessarily.


[edit: bbcode; edit: spacing; edit: comment after "-age" quote][/quote]

[Kelly Jones]

Hi Carl,

Part of the fuel for will is emotion -- a love of family, country, one's fellow warrior.

Hmmm. I'd have to disagree with you, for this reason:

When two values are held to with equal love, then no decision-making or willing can occur. So it would seem that

love itself doesn't fuel will.

Given your own stated heart condition,

Interestingly, if i do something, knowing that consciousness will become cloudy as a result, my heart plays up.

It's generally because i've made a habit of valuing thinking, so that any "ignoble" behaviour triggers a stress response.

it is understandable that you might a) value logic over emotion,

Topsy-turvy, mate. For all those who think that becoming enlightened means increasing health and bodily ease, here's some news. I was generally very strong, healthy, relatively stable psychologically, and had no heart problems --- before becoming interested in the wisdom of the Infinite. Realistically, "becoming judgmental and
abandoning life" can be stressarama.

Nietzsche immersed himself in deep thinking, despite crippling migraines.

and b) equate courage with heart size rather than with emotion.

I don't follow your reasoning. Can you explain?


[edit: sp]

[Cory Duchesne]

Certain emotional stress (caused by more base, animal pleasures) does physically shrink the heart or negatively effect the heart. I have personally experienced this first hand some years ago.

[edit for spelling/gramar]

[Carl G]

Carl: Part of the fuel for will is emotion -- a love of family, country, one's fellow warrior.

Kelly: Hmmm. I'd have to disagree with you, for this reason: When two values are held to with equal love, then no decision-making or willing can occur. So it would seem that love itself doesn't fuel will.

Your response appears to me a non-sequitor: I don't see how holding two values with equal love means no willing can occur, or how this demonstrates that love doesn't fuel one's will.

As I see it, will is put into motion by the intellect, but is necessarily supported by an avid wish (aspiration), an emotional impulse. Strict intellectual impulse alone (example: it is logical for me to finish school to get this degree, in order to pursue my chosen career) is rarely enough.

Even Kevin, our supreme intellectual, professes a love of wisdom, which I am sure fuels his continuing development towards Truth, that is, gives him heart for the struggle.

Carl: Given your own stated heart condition,

Kelly: Interestingly, if i do something, knowing that consciousness will become cloudy as a result, my heart plays up.

Your emotions kick up, are triggered.

It's generally because i've made a habit of valuing thinking, so that any "ignoble" behaviour triggers a stress response.

You have downgraded emotions, and perhaps are hoping to suppress them. But they flare up. Perhaps because you have not addressed your issues behind the emotions.

And this may be amplified by over-judging yourself: emotions are bad, I am bad for having them. Perhaps it is over-judging and unwise suppression of (rather than dealing with) emotions which is causing the accuteness of the heart condition.

Carl: it is understandable that you might a) value logic over emotion,

Kelly: Topsy-turvy, mate. For all those who think that becoming enlightened means increasing health and bodily ease, here's some news. I was generally very strong, healthy, relatively stable psychologically, and had no heart problems --- before becoming interested in the wisdom of the Infinite.

Interesting.

Realistically, "becoming judgmental and
abandoning life" can be stressarama.

Yes, as Gurdjieff once said, "Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo."

Carl: Given your own stated heart condition, it is understandable that you might a) value logic over emotion, and b) equate courage with heart size rather than with emotion.and

Kelly: I don't follow your reasoning. Can you explain?

Psychologically, I can see where a weak or uneven heart could cause one to distrust the value of emotion, and rely more on the mental faculty and its chief function logic. It could follow that a distrust of emotion would lead one to negate the emotional connection between "heart" and "courage" and believe a purely physical explanation.

Of course, I certainly allow for the above scenario to be untrue for you. Difficult to read a person just through words on a screen.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharpa wrote:

The point mainly is that a will to absolute truth ( forget about the relative-absolute business ) is not the only thing going on with bodhichitta, which is traditionally defined as heart-wisdom, or at least the heart principle is always there.

And my point is that this tradition is bullshit.

The reason? Because Ultimate Truth is known with a truthfulness that is not compromised by valuing anything else equally or more.

It has been too long since I read about the A=A logic and confess I am not sure exactly what it means. My sense is that it is something similar to: at first you see river and think it is solid. Then you deconstruct it and realise that a river is not a river. But then you realise that, deconstructed or not, one still perceives a river, so a river is a river, A = A. But perhaps that is not the sense of it at all?

It is extremely simple. Just that a thing is what it is. That's all.

But I do not really understand the notion of an absolutely true 'statement'. This is a thread about 'heart'. My main point is simply that heart involves somewhat mushy, tender, warm, experiential aspects, not cold logic alone.

And if i showed you a stick, are you going to think "Don't hit me!" ?

A stick is a stick. A=A. Absolutely true and absolutely logical.

Core truth of all things = causes. A=A. Absolutely true and, again, absolutely logical.

Core = heart. Cold logic alone.

By the way, emotions are emotions (A=A), and this also is cold logic alone. There's no need for emotion when the mind is thinking clearly and brightly.

I still find the words rage and wrath very close and doubt they are unrelated altogether. Even if they are etymologically, meaningwise they are close.

They are obviously related. No question about it.

However, rage/wrath is not related to courage.

I'm postulating that courage is far less emotion-driven than purpose-driven. That "heartedness" is the will to truth.

I don't remember categorising 'energies as reliable'

If you think "energies" are absolute, everywhere, everywhen, eternal and changeless, then i'd be willing to accept your use of them in this discussion.

What's your bet?

Wisdom involves working with endless confused people who are in conflict and pain.

Right. So give them what accords with reason.

Also, if you are not interested in something that relies on something else, then you are not interested in anything governed by the law of cause and effect. Are you saying that heart, or experience, for that matter, is not of interest to you, or are you saying that 'heart' (the thread topic) is beyond cause and effect, i.e. something only absolute?

The core truth of all things is the heart of all things. I am interested in that, certainly. Cause and effect applies to all things, so causation is absolute. I am interested in that.

The core truth of all things is that they are created by cause and effect, and lack inherent existence.

absolute bodhichitta is described as unborn, unceasing and unlimited. From that arises birth, death and territory/definitions.

Yes, i'm interested in discussing this.

Are you?

Or do you prefer "warmth", fluffy vagueness, snuggling up to a furry milky udder, and long dainty eyelashes fluttering softly?

[Kelly Jones]

Carl wrote:

emotions are here to stay

Here's the shorter answer:

Emotions are feelings - a lower form of consciousness. One might feel sensations or urges, that one isn't quite sure how to define, or how to respond to.

Rationality is identifying - a higher form of consciousness. One knows things clearly, by relying on a logical identity. So, the more rational the mind, the less emotional. And vice versa. As consciousness develops further, into highly rational mindfulness, there is increasingly smaller sign of urge-driven living.



The longer answer, which may or may not interest you, is an observation of empirical data only, and thus, not as reliable as the above ...... :

It's like getting trim and fit.

When there is no attachment, the mind is naturally bright and clear. All one need do is remember emptiness.

Here is a pattern that i use:

- On waking, i let my mind return to a purer state, before i get up.
- As i go about daily stuff, i find emotions turn up when there are power-urges. You know, "this is something i gotta do". To cool down, i take a lot of breaks. I do things in small doses.
- When the "weather" is getting heavy, then i just lie down or rest in a chair. I watch thoughts like watching the weather. Just like letting myself dream and wake up again, in the same day.
- I find that getting the blood circulating in the brain is also good. Some daily exercise and a few strolls, particularly when feeling sluggish, get slotted into my daily routine.

Gradually, as the days pass, the kick i once got out of emotions doesn't appeal to me as much. So things get simpler. I try to focus on totally logical thinking. And this in turn helps the mind to get used to a "open-hearted" state, meaning, of course, clear and full reflection of Nature.






.

[Carl G]

Kelly Jones to Tharpa:

I'm postulating that courage is far less emotion-driven than purpose-driven.

I think you've been postulating that courage does not require emotion at all.

...far less emotion-driven than purpose-driven. That "heartedness" is the will to truth.

I've been postulating that purpose and will must necessarily have an emotional component supporting them in a successful drive for truth. And that component is aspiration based on love. And perhaps a sense of wonder (to complement intellectual curiousity).

[Carl G]

Carl: emotions are here to stay

Kelly: Here's the shorter answer:

Emotions are feelings - a lower form of consciousness.

Why do you downgrade feelings as being lower than thoughts? Do not emotions inform the intellect? Sounds like a personal bias. I would say our emotional, mental, physical aspects are equally important. I would say they are all part of consciousness, rather than forms of consciousness to be ranked. Our bodies, minds and feelings are partners.

One might feel sensations or urges, that one isn't quite sure how to define, or how to respond to.

I think part of the work of becoming wise is to examine these sensations and urges and learn to define them and how to respond to them. Otherwise they will continue to distract us from other work.

Rationality is identifying - a higher form of consciousness. One knows things clearly, by relying on a logical identity.

Exactly my point above, regarding one's feelings and urges: step 1: identify them.

So, the more rational the mind, the less emotional. And vice versa. As consciousness develops further, into highly rational mindfulness, there is increasingly smaller sign of urge-driven living

Urge-driven living is not necessarily emotion-driven. It is more properly defined as mechanicalness, or pattern-driven living. This has more to do with unconsciousness/ consciousness than with emotions, although negative emotions play a big role.

Mechanicalness is what I am trying to overcome, not emotion per se.

Patterns may be emotionally triggered by events, but the answer is not to avoid emotions, it is to know them. And then to deal with the underlying issues. And yes, rationality is needed for this. And that is, in fact, how the mind becomes more clear: by clearing the issues which trigger negative states in us, and cause us to live in mechanical behavior, and cloud our minds.

Emotion needs to be cultivated, in order to serve our higher purpose. That we may serve our higher purpose (the pursuit of truth, or whatever we may call it).

When there is no attachment, the mind is naturally bright and clear. All one need do is remember emptiness.

This sounds like a mantra, aphorism, poem. There is truth in it, but it does not describe, or even allude to, the nuts and bolts of becoming conscious (naturally bright and clear).

Gradually, as the days pass, the kick i once got out of emotions doesn't appeal to me as much. So things get simpler. I try to focus on totally logical thinking. And this in turn helps the mind to get used to a "open-hearted" state, meaning, of course, clear and full reflection of Nature.

In my view, a purely mental viewpoint is a limited one. I do not believe a "clear and full reflection of Nature" is possible without the participation of one's emotional center.

[Kelly Jones]

Hi Carl,

Why do you downgrade feelings as being lower than thoughts? Do not emotions inform the intellect?

It's on a consciousness scale. Emotions don't clarify whether something is true or not, they just present things as if they really are true. The scale i'm using has "ability to discern what's true" at the top, so rationality is at the top and unconsciousness at the bottom.

I would say our emotional, mental, physical aspects are equally important. I would say they are all part of consciousness, rather than forms of consciousness to be ranked. Our bodies, minds and feelings are partners.

Well, certainly they all appear in consciousness. But not all can discern what's really true.

Rationality is what i call consciousness that "amplifies" things, so the truth of what a thing is, is crystal clear.

Kelly: One might feel sensations or urges, that one isn't quite sure how to define, or how to respond to.

Carl: I think part of the work of becoming wise is to examine these sensations and urges and learn to define them and how to respond to them. Otherwise they will continue to distract us from other work.

Well, as i mentioned above, emotions present things as if they really are true. From a rational perspective, these "truths" appear doubtful, since the rationale is missing.

The whole process of defining, decision-making, and examining things is rationality. I think you'd probably agree that the cool, calm, contemplative approach to things has very little hysteria and raciness to it.

Someone becomes aware of causes, and another has no idea of them so keeps reacting blindly.

Have you ever seen the movie, Blade Runner? The replicant Roy Batty knows his lifespan is up, so his actions and speech are calm and reflective. The blade runner, on the other hand, assumes he himself is about to get throttled by the replicant, and is racing in terrified circles trying to get away.

Kelly: So, the more rational the mind, the less emotional. And vice versa. As consciousness develops further, into highly rational mindfulness, there is increasingly smaller sign of urge-driven living

Carl: Urge-driven living is not necessarily emotion-driven. It is more properly defined as mechanicalness, or pattern-driven living. This has more to do with unconsciousness/ consciousness than with emotions, although negative emotions play a big role.

Every consciousness has no control over what thought appears next. In this sense, we're all driven by mechanical "urges". However, if we take "urge" to mean "desire", then the highly rational person is driven by desire-free urges, and the emotional person is driven by desire-ful urges, if you get my drift.

Mechanicalness is what I am trying to overcome, not emotion per se.

I'm not sure what you mean by mechanicalness. We are all machines, in the sense of being determined by cause and effect.

Do you mean irrational habits? More below.

Patterns may be emotionally triggered by events, but the answer is not to avoid emotions, it is to know them. And then to deal with the underlying issues. And yes, rationality is needed for this. And that is, in fact, how the mind becomes more clear: by clearing the issues which trigger negative states in us, and cause us to live in mechanical behavior, and cloud our minds.

I think by "mechanical behaviour" you mean "unconscious" or "emotion-driven".

Clearing emotion-charged issues uses reasoning alone.

Emotion needs to be cultivated, in order to serve our higher purpose. That we may serve our higher purpose (the pursuit of truth, or whatever we may call it).

I think a better word than "cultivated" might be "identifying", like a fisherman who spots a glimmer down below his boat, anchors carefully, and makes the perfect rig and bait to catch it.

The emotion is brought into focus, and its identity created using reasoning and inference. Including things like memories, other ideas, and the ego. By this point, all the vagueness of emotion (or feeling and instincts) has been replaced by crisp logical identities.

Kelly: When there is no attachment, the mind is naturally bright and clear. All one need do is remember emptiness.

Carl: This sounds like a mantra, aphorism, poem. There is truth in it, but it does not describe, or even allude to, the nuts and bolts of becoming conscious (naturally bright and clear).

Well, the very first movement has to be towards emptiness. Only Emptiness puts everything into perspective. One may only have a sense, or a feeling, of what emptiness is, at this point.

This is a "nuts and bolts" description that i favour:

First, remember to remember the importance of the enlightened mind, and remember to remember how such a mind feels. Then call to mind the feeling of enlightenment, and quickly attain it.

In my view, a purely mental viewpoint is a limited one. I do not believe a "clear and full reflection of Nature" is possible without the participation of one's emotional center.

You obviously don't believe your own view, or you would not have used a purely mental viewpoint.





I agree with you that the love of wisdom is vital to enlightenment. That love overcomes other loves, until there isn't any need for the love.

It is actually rationality that exploits love, because it is "manipulating" the brute-force armies of the psyche to support one's spiritual goals.

Such a love is steered by reason, or there would be no wisdom.

[tharpa]

Kelly,

it is interesting that in a thread on heart, one of your main examples is a stick = stick, A = A.

A mother's love for her child is an example of a heartfelt truth. Of course, it can go all over the map in terms of being sane/neurotic etc., but as long as you want to use the english language, and no matter how many trips are taken to a public dictionary on the web, heart does not equal logic, and indeed often means something quite different, either in mundane or esoteric vocabularies.

On the one hand you say the tradition that distinguishes between absolute and relative is all bullshit, and then you say you are interesting in discussing only the absolute aspect. Fair enough. Except that the absolute aspect is understandable only in the context of understanding relative as well, i.e. the background that allows the relative to arise. On its own, it has no meaning whatsoever.

In your description of developing wisdom, many of the tactics involved dealing with emotionality.

In my opinion, emotions are what we feel (and not necessarily the same as 'feelings') as the living expression of mind/body inter-relationship. All emotions have physical 'energies', i.e. we feel them especially somewhere (or many places). So the territorial situation we find ourselves in as individuated (relative) being in an overall (absolute) continuum involves a certain charge, or energy, and the style of territory we maintain is experienced as 'emotion', both in mind and body.

Heart involves feeling both self-based-territorial consciousness as well as the broader context of other selves and beyond selfhood altogether.

Or put another way: if all is logic, who is logicking and what is the motivation?