Once again, for the benefit of the extremely patient reader, heart as i have been using it in this entire thread means the core truth of all things.tharpa wrote:it is interesting that in a thread on heart, one of your main examples is a stick = stick, A = A.
Regarding the stick, it was an attempt using humour to see whether you'd identify something (A=A, an absolute truth) without an emotional reaction (false heart). But you didn't.
You may, however, be familiar with a Zen koan that goes something like this:
A wandering nobody, perhaps a monk, visited a Zen master.
The teacher asked the monk, "Where have you come from?" The monk said, "Oh, the Bodhidharma temple up in the Daoist Mountains".
The teacher wondered at this reply. Then he asked, "And what is your name?" The monk replied instantly and without thinking, "Bob".
At this, the teacher frowned a bit, then asked, "And what are you doing here?" To this third question, the monk breezily answered, "Attending a lecture and doing a bit of Zazen meditation."
To this third thoughtless answer, the teacher replied, "I should give you a good three whacks in the head with a stick, for those answers. But i won't. Dismissed." Bob the monk, bewildered, went away.
The next morning, he came back to see the Zen master. He said, "Yesterday you said you should have whacked me in the head a few times. I don't understand. What did i do wrong?"
The teacher replied, "You're a good-for-nothing monk. You're way south of the lake."
Hearing of this story retold by another Zen teacher, another monk said, "That Zen master should have given him those good, hard whacks in the head with his stick!"
The Zen master, hearing this, replied, "When you hear stick, your head is full of "whack someone with it". You idiot. Don't you see that Bob the monk was so far removed from any idea of the truth that he wouldn't have known that a whack meant "No, wrong" ? So, the teacher could only say, "You're way off course," and leave it at that.
I've never defined heart to mean logic, tharpa, at least not in this thread. Don't think i ever have.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.
I've always been using heart to mean core. As in essence.
I did not say this. I said the tradition that says the core truth of all things (heart of wisdom) is emotion-based is bullshit.On the one hand you say the tradition that distinguishes between absolute and relative is all bullshit,
A core truth of all things is true absolutely. So it is logical to discuss the absolute.and then you say you are interesting in discussing only the absolute aspect.
There is no background for absolutely everything. That is illogical. A background would have to be included in "everything".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.
The thread "Dealing with emotions" is full of well-reasoned ideas. At no time is emotion used irrationally. In my post to Carl, above, i mentioned that love for wisdom is discarded when there are no competing loves.In your description of developing wisdom, many of the tactics involved dealing with emotionality.
When there is an unhelpful addiction, i wrote, trading it for a helpful one is useful. This is an utterly logical, rather than emotional, idea.
If you posit energies as being everything that can possibly be experienced, then you are reasoning that the identity of absolutely everything is "energies". So it is only by reasoning that "energies" has existence.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.
Since everything you identify exactly is reasoned to be itself, then everything that can possibly be experienced is the reasoning mind.
If you are saying thatHeart involves feeling both self-based-territorial consciousness as well as the broader context of other selves and beyond selfhood altogether.
Absolutely Everything = "self-based-territorial consciousness" + "broader context of other selfs and beyond selfhood altogether"
then
you have defined the Absolute. If this definition is logical, then nothing else can possibly exist.
It looks to me like "selfs + everything that isn't a self". That sounds reasonable to me.
The only suspicious part to your statement is that you claim that the Totality of all things (which you call Heart) is felt. I dispute this, because one cannot experience the Totality as a thing, at all.
The logical answer is logic. You did say, "if all is logic".Or put another way: if all is logic, who is logicking and what is the motivation?
.