GENIUS FORUMS

Pye wrote:

David wrote:He still continues to have values and respond to things, but in a non-emotional way.

What way then? It gives the oddest sensation that one escapes autonomic, unexamined responses to things (emotions) . . . only to return to a reflexive, no-need-to-examine-anymore state of being. But of course I see the vast distance between the two things . . . .

While emotions are autonomic, and usually unexamined, we can nip emotions in the bud by eliminating the delusions that trigger them. In the same way that if you remove the fuel, a fire cannot be ignited, even if all the other conditions are met.

In some people, their emotions lead them to value truth and to seek truth. Once they arrive at truth their emotions evaporate, and so cease to be a driving force. However the person continues to value truth purely through momentum - since there is no reason to change direction. Just like a spacecraft in space will use fuel (emotions) to gain speed, but when the engines are cut off the craft does not lose any speed and will continue on its course.

(Hello too) Leyla, who writes:

It is on this basis, in fact, that I have found it difficult to conceive of such a thing as an "emotionless individual." or, fully enlightened Buddha. But, if I twist my thinking a little bit, I can see that this state -- when constant -- is different to the consideration of emotional responses to events/situations. It is seamless and unchanging. Does it then qualify as an emotion, per se? It would if one were to experience it momentarily in contrast to the experience of an array of other emotions.

Since "emotion(s)" is in itself one of those hot-button words to most here (like "compassion"), it needs both its distance and recovery to get conversational workability.

On the distance side of things, anyone who has done work on the nature/'death' of ego understands how many of these feelings are dissolved when the ego, too, is exposed for its pitifully clinging nature. I have not found it to "end" all feeling, but I have found it to permit these clinging-style feelings to move, and when they do, they move quickly, away. They are freed-up, so to speak, and when well-freed, they move so fast as to escape overly conscious register -- and like all sicknessess and obsessions exposed, one is eventually uninterested in their conjuring and nursing them at all. One is not required to stop and examine this or that little or not-so-little ping (including the ones gratifying to ego) in an effort to recover the offended or drunkenly pleased ground of ego, or to justify same.

The so-called 'death' of ego is not the death of all sentiency (feeling). This is how I have meant refinement. Like you mention, anger can become a "state" just as "placidity" or "serenity." It is not the state that is objected to, but the quality of the feeling attached to it. This would be on the recovery side of things.

But then, I am not this enlightened person styled here in the fundamentals of the forum. At the present, I have refined my feeling and my understanding -- enough to where I can pretty immediately identify the nature of a sensation as belonging to protective ego, and in that same split second, I am done with it; it has been permitted to move along; I am not interested in fussing and clinging there. In this process, less and less is necessary to consciously register at all. But all feeling does not "go away." I would very much be interested to speak to this 'perfectly enlightened' person for whom all feeling, all sentiency has been destroyed. It is notable that no one here can style themselves that way. It is equally notable to identify how much refinement is going on.

But then, a 'woman' talking about 'feelings' has little chance of being heard here in a refined way, too!

The thing I have been curious about is the rabid and rapid distance from all feeling that presents itself in the fundamentals here. In all my readings of the teaching of Buddha, I get plenty of sense of the nature of clinging and a vision beyond the other side of this, but I do not get a picture of the unremitting and aggressive destruction of all feeling as it is represented here. This is not what I see or feel reading the Buddha's life or teachings. I see instead a heightened sentiency, a refined one, that can take in more (if not all) of the workings of things. [Place "compassion" here.]

I am curious if these are one of those necessary distances in association, or, recoveries from sappy and drunken new-age things, or, all things remotely thought feminine that is deemed the only possible way by the fundamentals of the forum. I am also curious if later teaching or schools of thought are what is influencing the uncompromising distance from all human sentiency/feeling here, or if this is original interpretation, or Buddhism-hybridized, by the folks presenting and teaching these things on the forum. And my curiosity is not the confrontational kind.

Pye wrote:The thing I have been curious about is the rabid and rapid distance from all feeling

Emotional feelings are only one kind of feeling. Therefore getting rid of emotions doesn't eliminate all feelings. What are feelings other than emotional feelings you may ask? Apart from sensory feelings (eg, cold, heat, etc) there are intuitive feelings - a sense of things that issues from the unconscious. For example, I might meet someone for the first time, and immediately sense (or "feel") that they are, say, a journalist, or a criminal of some sort. Likewise I might sense/feel that a person is depressed, or anxious, etc. There need be no emotions associated with these feelings.

I see instead a heightened sentiency, a refined one, that can take in more (if not all) of the workings of things. [Place "compassion" here.]

Emotion prevents understanding, and hence prevents true compassion. Emotion prevents clarity of feeling.

ksolway wrote: Emotional feelings are only one kind of feeling. Therefore getting rid of emotions doesn't eliminate all feelings. (...) There need be no emotions associated with these feelings.

I prefer to define emotions slightly different:

The experience of bodily (vasomotor, somatic) changes are emotions. And this will show the following to remain logical:

ksolway wrote: Emotion prevents understanding, and hence prevents true compassion. Emotion prevents clarity of feeling.

An emotional state prevents the slower time consuming process of rational thought and consideration since it could endanger the survival in situation where reaction speed is of prime importance. This includes for example non-verbal communication: determining intentions of a possible foe, or partner.

The problems with emotions are arising when they keep on getting triggered in situations that require more reflection to form a wiser response. The deluded human stuck in a continuous state of fear and desire at some level won't be able to have clarity, at least not on the deeper issues of his life.

So the problem with emotion seems to be not the fact they are arising but that they are still being triggered through our 'inward' existence and believe in the self. This creates a flight and fight, fear and desire environment completely hypothetical and unreal while always present on the background.

But even beyond the unreal, anger is still being necessarily experienced as a part of striking down an assailant and fear is still being experienced as part of fleeing away from an angry bear. Purely in a functional manner and they stop if the heat of the action dies down. Some might refuse to call these experiences emotions altogether but this is really what they seem to be down to the core.

Pye wrote:

Like Sapius, I have survived all sorts of caustic foods; but I am unable to suggest they have had no bearing on my state of mind. Not when I can do something else to achieve a different bearing.

Neither do I suggest that they have absolutely no bearing on the state of mind; I basically agree to all that Diebert has said on the subject, however, it is firstly that a mind is already inclined towards a philosophical path that makes him logically deduce as to what could better his state of mind to further pursue his goals, not that if someone does exactly the same thing for purely health reasons will be inclined automatically towards discovering Truth. That person may want a healthy state of mind to pursue say engineering, or becoming the top-notch dealer on Wall Street. What you actually value has the involvement of all that Diebert says here…

Diebert: It seems relevant to realize how our diet, physical states, cultural background, lifestyle, surroundings or activity level often form quite a balanced system that has lots of individual parts in the sense that while there might be some universal 'wise' things to do or leave, for many things it might be more tricky to determine their effect.

All that I am saying is that eating a certain diet will not necessarily lead to what you actually value unless you take all the multitude of causes that effect the mind, and a good diet being one of them. Yes, I have survived all sorts of food, but that does not mean that I do not care about my health at all and continue eating junk day in and day out. That would be stupid, wouldn’t it?

Diebert: Yet, in closing it should be said that going after the root cause of our suffering and ignorance should always be the main concern. It's only because of the practical reality of the karmic webs we are caught in that I believe it's worth considering, for the sake of those who are deeply caught into it, to gain knowledge about certain causes and effects relating to our bodies and minds.

Absolutely, it is worth considering.

There has been some fine discussion on emotions, but I feel for the sake of clarity it might need sub-categorizing so to speak.

Diebert: So the problem with emotion seems to be not the fact they are arising but that they are still being triggered through our 'inward' existence and believe in the self. This creates a flight and fight, fear and desire environment completely hypothetical and unreal while always present on the background.

But even beyond the unreal, anger is still being necessarily experienced as a part of striking down an assailant and fear is still being experienced as part of fleeing away from an angry bear. Purely in a functional manner and they stop if the heat of the action dies down. Some might refuse to call these experiences emotions altogether but this is really what they seem to be down to the core.

I don’t know… protecting ones self against an assailant and fleeing out of fear of being harmed is basically instinctual, and at a deeper level is more logical than emotional. An animal does not believe in a self to protect or flee from what he experiences through sensual A=A, and a memory of past experiences. However, I could sub-categorize it as ‘instinctual emotions’, including what we see in animals protecting their off springs. But that too, I see as arising from an instinctual need dictated by the rule of survival, for when an off spring dies, that “love” dies with it, and the animal moves on, un-attached to a thing that does not interact or exist any more. It really lives in the NOW, with no past or future concepts to support unreasonable attachments, except, past experiences that are useful for surviving the NOW.


In my opinion it is language, meanings of words, and the value one attaches to the meanings of those words, creating a personality, that are actually responsible for “human” emotions. Including the meaning attached to a verbally defined self. Coming to a logical conclusion that there is no inherent self is still a concept held by a certain self, so an A=A experiencing “self” does not simply disappear. If language would permit I could call it something else, but what else can I call that through which I operate?

The ‘self does not inherently exist’ does not mean that it does not literally exist, for without it, one cannot realize the truth about its non-inherent nature. A belief in a self comes naturally through experiencing A=A, albeit not a reasoned one but at an automatically calculated instinctual level, until one is inclined to logically reason its inherency, one realizes its non-inherent nature, and yet, does not stop experiencing A=A, hence a basic self always remain. Its only when you stop attaching verbal values to nature that you could possibly get rid of values attached to human emotions. Then again, attachments are only replaced; I don’t think one can get rid of all and every ‘attachment’ as long as one is experiencing A=A, which is a logical attachment itself, one could only logically recognize its truth remaining in an A=A world, which is all that we have.

Don't you agree that-- that which is possible in theory, is possible in practice?

A person raised in very sane world by wise people certainly would have a shot at perfection. Albeit conditional, even in our mad mad world some have attained states of complete non-attachment. Just imagine what a mind could achieve if given half a chance.

Lenny, I take it that this post is addressed to me since it appears immediately below my post.

Don't you agree that-- that which is possible in theory, is possible in practice?

Sure, but it depends on how logically sound a theory is, or what does it actually mean.

A person raised in very sane world by wise people certainly would have a shot at perfection.

Hmmm… Not necessarily. Firstly, an individuals own perspective should acknowledge that he is indeed among the wise. It is also common that if a person is raised among the wise, he does not necessarily come to appreciate what is wise. I don’t deny that there isn't a high probability though.

Albeit conditional, even in our mad mad world some have attained states of complete non-attachment.

In fact, I would say that it is mostly only those who actually do recognize the insanity according to their own reasoning that are actually inspired to seek the Truth. It doesn’t really matter which world they were raised in, they will naturally tend to seek wisdom from, and in whichever way they can.

Now, lets take for example the theory of ‘attaining states of complete non-attachments’; I would not simply agree with this unless the person stating this defines what he exactly means by “state” and “complete” in this context.

I would like to know where does he draw the line within his consciousness to call it a certain kind of state or a complete non-attachment? Complete Non-attachment to what? To a Self? Then I would ask which self is he talking about? Are there two different self’s to his Self? Can he achieve non-attachment to consciousness? I don’t think so. And what is consciousness other than a logical deduction through recognizing forms and differentiating between them, including a Self. There could be only one Self, and ultimately, you cannot get rid of it. On the other hand, it is only a matter of an absolutely changed perspective of the same self since it now operates through a logical non-attachment to inherency of forms, including that of a Self.

Just imagine what a mind could achieve if given half a chance.

Sure, I know, and that statement is already an inspirational thought that may help go all the way.