why wont QSorR answer Lairds fair question?

[Laird]

Oh well Dan, I do enjoy a good debate and I try to go beyond the superficial but if that's all that you get from my posts then so be it. There's a lot to be said for the dialectical technique. You are interested in discovering and illuminating truth right? Debate is a great way of doing that. And why shouldn't I highlight logical problems? I thought that you were a man who strives for impeccable logic. Surely you would want to know where there are holes in your logic.

[Dan Rowden]

The problem is that you don't make the effort to understand what you're trying to find logical holes in. You are doing no more than poking holes in your own misunderstandings and constructs. That dynamic can go on forever and achieve nothing at all. You lack the commitment necessary for that understanding. That's fine, of itself - you don't have to have it - but I can't find any value in it sufficient to make the considerable effort required.

[Laird]

You (plural) have a vastly different philosophical position than I do, and I might equally accuse you of not being committed enough to understand my position. It cuts both ways mate. I've made considerable efforts to understand your position. I talk with Kevin regularly. I participate on this forum. I've read Wisdom of the Infinite. I've read various bits and pieces from your websites. I've listened to all of your podcasts so far. You tell me that I'm lucky that you could be bothered responding to me, well likewise you're lucky that I could be bothered participating in your projects to the extent that I have done.

[Dan Rowden]

You (plural) have a vastly different philosophical position than I do, and I might equally accuse you of not being committed enough to understand my position.

Those parts of your position that you're willing to put on the line are entirely conventional. I've seen them, and more sophisticated versions thereof, 1,000 times in the last 10 years. And I wasn't born the way I am, you know. I know the conventional world backwards.

It cuts both ways mate.

Actually, it doesn't, but think what you like.

I've made considerable efforts to understand your position.

Ok, then my position would be that it's beyond your powers to get it. That's ok, too.

I talk with Kevin regularly. I participate on this forum. I've read Wisdom of the Infinite.

None of those of things actually mean much of themselves. Your subsequent questions and the attitude laying behind them indicate to me that not much has gotten through or is ever likely to. I think the right sort of conceptual paradigm has eluded you so far and it will continue to do so because of that underlying attitude, which is essentially one of: "I rather like all my conventional experiences and am actually very attached to most of them (arguing their virtue with vigor) and therefore can't see any good reason to risk them." Basically, you don't have the drive to risk them. i.e. you lack Bodhicitta. That's ok too; it is what it is.

[David Quinn]

If we take fear as an example, it should be obvious that if a person doesn't perceive a threatening situation, either in the physical world or in the mind, then the emotion of fear will not arise.

Well, not entirely obvious. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some people simply feel fear for no particular reason that they can identify. Certainly it's happened to me before with anxiety - a feeling of constant butterflies in my stomach when outwardly, nothing seemed to be wrong with my life.

That sort of thing is usually the result of past perceptions (such as those involved with the experience of childhood trauma) that have subsequently been suppressed. As adults, these suppressed perceptions occasionally come to the surface, perhaps not enough to reach full consciousness, but enough to trigger the fear/anxiety process.

I took that as a sign that I needed a break from the routine of my life and I went travelling around Australia for a year. It was one of the best decisions that I've ever made - a case of listening and responding to one's emotional state.

That's good. It is important to be aware of one's emotional states, if they arise, and deal with them properly and not block them away.

Even though the physical underpinning of fear is hard-wired into the body, it cannot be activated unless a perception of threat occurs. If, by chance, a person were never to perceive a threatening situation in his whole life, then he would go through to his death bed without ever experiencing fear, despite the fact that the potential to experience fear was hard-wired into his system all along. It simply didn't get activated.

When a person understands the illusory nature of his own self and allows this understanding to filter into every nook and cranny of his being, thus altering his perceptions, he is in effect removing the possibility of fear, and any other emotion, ever arising. A particular situation can only be perceived as threatening if one believes there is something real to begin with that needs protecting.

There is an old saying that a man without possessions can never experience theft. If a person empties himself so much that there is no longer anything inside him, except pure reality, then nothing can possibly threaten or harm him. In effect, he has cheated Nature's ability to threaten or harm him. He is beyond the emotions.

Oh yeah, well then kidnap that man, strip him naked and tie him up spreadeagled on a hard table, light up a blow-torch and tell me that the bugger doesn't feel more terrified than he's ever felt in his life.

If he was a fully-enlightened Buddha, he wouldn't experience even the slightest hint of fear.

See, you can philosophise about lack of boundaries all that you like, but when it comes down to it, we're human beings who can be hurt and pleased, and that's what your philosophy of emotionlessness is in denial of.

No, it doesn't deny this at all. On the contrary, it very much confirms it as part of the process of facing up to reality and seeing what needs to be done. But at the same time, it doesn't insist that this is all there is.

-

[Laird]

Those parts of your position that you're willing to put on the line are entirely conventional. I've seen them, and more sophisticated versions thereof, 1,000 times in the last 10 years. And I wasn't born the way I am, you know. I know the conventional world backwards.

Well then my position would be that you simply haven't found sufficient reward in the conventional world for it to attract you, and have sought solace in unconventional values mostly because those values give you a point of difference from "the herd" and allow you to feel superior to them (please note that I'm not condemning you for your sense of superiority - I think that it's latent in most of us, particularly in men). Perhaps if you'd found more reward in the conventional world you would have stuck it out.

I think the right sort of conceptual paradigm has eluded you so far and it will continue to do so because of that underlying attitude, which is essentially one of: "I rather like all my conventional experiences and am actually very attached to most of them (arguing their virtue with vigor) and therefore can't see any good reason to risk them." Basically, you don't have the drive to risk them. i.e. you lack Bodhicitta. That's ok too; it is what it is.

I'm constantly building on "the right sort of conceptual paradigm". I accrete wisdom as I discover it, and there is much in the philosophy of non-attachment that I appreciate. For example, I live on a very modest income and own very little (alright I own a house, but it's pretty much the cheapest house in Australia and really the bank owns the majority of it) and it wouldn't particularly bother me to have to start all over again materially. When I first came to Tasmania I literally arrived with the clothes on my back and my wallet. I gave away all of my prior possessions. You don't need to teach me much about lack of attachment to the material world. Kevin owns more possessions and buys more possessions than me.

As for risk, you have no idea of the risks that I've taken in my life and the unconventional approaches that I've tried at various times, but as I've made plain in the past, I don't intend to share on GF that aspect of my approach. Frankly speaking, I see little risk in the approach that you take either. It's more like a set of beliefs to which one claims adherence: that the self is illusory and the dissolution of emotions at this understanding; the non-inherent nature of existence; the primacy of causality and the deterministic nature of the Totality; the infinity of the Totality in all senses; the importance of A=A; etc. Far from being risky (except in the sense that these beliefs will be judged as bizarre by the majority, leading to the risk of conflict/social rejection), they seem to me to be comfortable for you. You've found your niche and you'll promote and defend it to the end.

[Laird]

Laird: Oh yeah, well then kidnap that man, strip him naked and tie him up spreadeagled on a hard table, light up a blow-torch and tell me that the bugger doesn't feel more terrified than he's ever felt in his life.

David: If he was a fully-enlightened Buddha, he wouldn't experience even the slightest hint of fear.

Well then, David, show me a fully-enlightened Buddha. I know that there are incredible individuals who perform incredible feats - witness monks who burn themselves alive as a political protest - but do those people truly not feel fear, or do they rather feel fear, transcend it and act anyway?

Laird: See, you can philosophise about lack of boundaries all that you like, but when it comes down to it, we're human beings who can be hurt and pleased, and that's what your philosophy of emotionlessness is in denial of.

David: No, it doesn't deny this at all. On the contrary, it very much confirms it as part of the process of facing up to reality and seeing what needs to be done. But at the same time, it doesn't insist that this is all there is.

What I meant was that the state of emotionlessness is in contradiction with the observation that human beings can be hurt and pleased, because being hurt and being pleased instigates an emotional response. I don't buy this stark contrast that you guys make between "emotions" and "all other feelings". I think that there's a continuum of feeling, with emotions occupying a blurry part of the spectrum, and that to be consciousness is to be in some state of feeling at some point on the continuum.

[David Quinn]

Laird: Oh yeah, well then kidnap that man, strip him naked and tie him up spreadeagled on a hard table, light up a blow-torch and tell me that the bugger doesn't feel more terrified than he's ever felt in his life.

David: If he was a fully-enlightened Buddha, he wouldn't experience even the slightest hint of fear.

Well then, David, show me a fully-enlightened Buddha. I know that there are incredible individuals who perform incredible feats - witness monks who burn themselves alive as a political protest - but do those people truly not feel fear, or do they rather feel fear, transcend it and act anyway?

If these monks were fully-enlightened (which, since they were engaging in political protest, I very much doubt), then they would have experienced no fear at all. If they weren't fully-enlightened, then they would have needed to find a way to overcome their fear, via will-power and mental tricks.

The reason why a fully-enlightened Buddha can never experience fear, no matter what the situation, is that he entirely unattached to all states of being. He doesn't favour one state over another.

Laird: See, you can philosophise about lack of boundaries all that you like, but when it comes down to it, we're human beings who can be hurt and pleased, and that's what your philosophy of emotionlessness is in denial of.

David: No, it doesn't deny this at all. On the contrary, it very much confirms it as part of the process of facing up to reality and seeing what needs to be done. But at the same time, it doesn't insist that this is all there is.

What I meant was that the state of emotionlessness is in contradiction with the observation that human beings can be hurt and pleased, because being hurt and being pleased instigates an emotional response.

That's certainly true of egotists - i.e. unenlightened people.

I don't buy this stark contrast that you guys make between "emotions" and "all other feelings". I think that there's a continuum of feeling, with emotions occupying a blurry part of the spectrum, and that to be consciousness is to be in some state of feeling at some point on the continuum.

An emotion is any feeling that causes us to think and act irrationally.

-

[Jamesh]

The reason why a fully-enlightened Buddha can never experience fear, no matter what the situation, is that he entirely unattached to all states of being. He doesn't favour one state over another.

To me there is still a sense of irrationality in statements like this. It feels like a "what ought to be" statement rather than a reasoned statement. I have to take it literally, as it sounds like a strong belief of yours, but I just can't see how such a person could survive for very long.

If you were to say a FEB only momentarily experiences fear, and is not consciously bound by this emotion for long, I would agree.

I cannot agree that a FEB would not favour one state over another, but I would agree that a FEB would not dwell in self pity in relation to any state of suffering that arises.
A FEB must still favour one state over another to rationally assess the best options to take for survival. If a FEB did not make such relative value judgements, and all values are just favour or disfavour or indifference, and if this inaction [edit: as a result of not being emotionally prompted into action as would occur in a person without values] lead to his conscious demise, then that would be an "irrational" outcome of enlightenment. Irrational because it is self-defeating.