GENIUS FORUMS

Consider the possibility of a higher emotional center:
This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling intelligently, rather than it being generated by circumstance. Thus it is really a part of the logical mind as well except that it can work with rapid speed, as compared to the thought based system.

Now in Buddhism, I have never seen this idea of the higher emotional center. The furthest Buddhism goes is that feelings arise and pass away without any attachment. This led me to speculate whether the Buddha stopped at one level short of the real treasure, that is an intelligent emotional apparatus, that would allow one to engage with anything very skillfully. Is that also a reason why Buddhism is an ascetic path, which seems to prefer retirement from the world.

Consider the possibility of a higher emotional center:
This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling intelligently

Isn't that contradictory?

rather than it being generated by circumstance.

What isn't generated by circumstance?

Thus it is really a part of the logical mind as well except that it can work with rapid speed, as compared to the thought based system.

I don't get it.

Now in Buddhism, I have never seen this idea of the higher emotional center. The furthest Buddhism goes is that feelings arise and pass away without any attachment. This led me to speculate whether the Buddha stopped at one level short of the real treasure, that is an intelligent emotional apparatus, that would allow one to engage with anything very skillfully. Is that also a reason why Buddhism is an ascetic path, which seems to prefer retirement from the world.

Are you by any chance Enlightened?

maestro wrote:Consider the possibility of a higher emotional center:
This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling intelligently, rather than it being generated by circumstance. Thus it is really a part of the logical mind as well except that it can work with rapid speed, as compared to the thought based system.

Now in Buddhism, I have never seen this idea of the higher emotional center. The furthest Buddhism goes is that feelings arise and pass away without any attachment.

That's probably true of conventional, popular Buddhism. Genuine Buddhism goes much further and seeks the elimination of emotion altogether.

This led me to speculate whether the Buddha stopped at one level short of the real treasure, that is an intelligent emotional apparatus, that would allow one to engage with anything very skillfully. Is that also a reason why Buddhism is an ascetic path, which seems to prefer retirement from the world.

What would be the point? What can emotion add to the workings of intelligence and wisdom?

-

Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of intuition.

Peter L wrote:Quote:
Consider the possibility of a higher emotional center:
This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling intelligently


Isn't that contradictory?

Quote:
rather than it being generated by circumstance.


What isn't generated by circumstance?

Quote:
Thus it is really a part of the logical mind as well except that it can work with rapid speed, as compared to the thought based system.


I don't get it.

It is quite simple really, consider the logical mind for example, it gives out a decision based on the circumstance, plus its past experience and logic. While in an ordinary person the emotional mind just generates a feeling/emotion based exclusively on the circumstance. In an intelligent emotional center, the feeling is generated by circumstance, past experience and logic.

David Quinn wrote: That's probably true of conventional, popular Buddhism. Genuine Buddhism goes much further and seeks the elimination of emotion altogether.

I have never seen that. All I have seen is non-attachment. Basically quarantine the rest of the mind from the emotional center. Whether this may lead to the death of emotional center is just a conjecture.

David Quinn wrote: What would be the point? What can emotion add to the workings of intelligence and wisdom?

For example even if you know something to be logically correct, you are not able to do it, because of feelings. If the emotional center can work intelligently you can pursue and intelligent action with your full being. The death of the feeling/emotional center is something of which I have no credible evidence, and I doubt it is very likely.

Kevin Solway wrote:Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of intuition.

That is something different altogether. Intuition is able to know without using the logical process, this is based on fast pattern recognition I would speculate. See my reply to Peter for what is the intelligent emotional center.

maestro;

Regarding Buddhism, different people have different understandings as to the teachings of Buddha. My understanding is that Buddha taught the Middle Way, not asceticism. He is reported to have said in his very first teaching:

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

-- Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html )

While some Buddhists understand the goal as the elimination of emotions, other Buddhists understand the teaching as non-attachment to emotions; i.e., emotions may continue to arise, but one does not act (or re-act) to the passing emotions.

Regarding your suggestion of an “intelligent emotional center”, you state that for ordinary persons emotions arise exclusively from circumstances without effect by past experience and logic. This does not conform to my observations, so on what basis do you assert this?

And are you positing that a person logically choose to feel a particular emotion? For example, that one choose to feel love because it’s logical?

Do no harm,
clyde

The key thing is to use the past experience in an intelligent way to form the current feeling state. For example if you have to go for an interview, and in the past you have always felt anxious and have fudged your interview, if you have an intelligent emotional center, it will use this past knowledge to create calmness in the mind. If not you are going to feel anxious, based exclusively on your past habits and the current circumstance.

maestro wrote:The key thing is to use the past experience in an intelligent way to form the current feeling state. For example if you have to go for an interview, and in the past you have always felt anxious and have fudged your interview, if you have an intelligent emotional center, it will use this past knowledge to create calmness in the mind. If not you are going to feel anxious, based exclusively on your past habits and the current circumstance.

According to Buddhism, we all have an intelligent emotional center: it is called one’s ‘Buddha Nature’. In this ‘awakened state’, one is able to deal with any given situation without fear or anxiety, and always acts in a manner that is appropriate. Take the case of your interview, for example, an awakened one would not concern themselves with whether or not the interview will be successful, for this is not within the sphere of that which they can control; rather, they would focus all of their attention on that which is in their control - how they present themselves in the comming interview; and trust that the outcome will be exactly what it should be.

maestro wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of intuition.

That is something different altogether. Intuition is able to know without using the logical process

Intuition definitely uses logical processes. If it didn't, it would be useless.

.


-maestro considers-
Consider the possibility of a higher emotional center: This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling intelligently, rather than it being generated by circumstance.

-tomas-
Gut instinct.



-maestro
Thus it is really a part of the logical mind as well except that it can work with rapid speed, as compared to the thought based system.

-tomas-
The completeness of the human mind has no barriers nor existential limits.




-maestro pontificates-
Now in Buddhism, I have never seen this idea of the higher emotional center.

-tomas-
Buddhism is a word, not an emotive nerve




-maestro adds-
The furthest Buddhism goes is that feelings arise and pass away without any attachment.

-tomas-
All feeling is not equal in measure.




-maestro crosses the divider-
This led me to speculate whether the Buddha stopped at one level short of the real treasure, that is an intelligent emotional apparatus, that would allow one to engage with anything very skillfully.

-tomas-
Hence, the caste system began...




-maestro questions-
Is that also a reason why Buddhism is an ascetic path, which seems to prefer retirement from the world.

-tomas-
Buddhism IS the world.



.

That's probably true of conventional, popular Buddhism. Genuine Buddhism goes much further and seeks the elimination of emotion altogether.

Buddhism is a dead end game, as is the elimination of emotion (which is just a conceptual falsity anyway, except in the brain dead).

Buddhism is good for allowing a higher degree of rationality, in that it provides the context of reality - but take it too far, and the reality of life (namely that life involves competition at all levels) makes "buddhists" less competitive, so they die out or are killed. Vietnam as compared to Tibet is an example (the vietnamese are still capable of resisting the chinese overtaking their culture, whereas the Tibetians are not).

Are you sure you want to stand by that last sentence as an example of your point, Jimbo? I seriously suggest you rethink it.

Hmm, yeah China, Japan and Vietnam can be argued to be way more competitive at least in the global market place than most Western countries are right now. And they all have way more Buddhists and Buddhism as defining influence, historically as well as currently. Tibet has different problems in my opinion, they seem to be caught in their self-made socio-political lies and myths that are falling apart at the seems. The outpouring of sympathy you see here daily in Western media is a fine illustration of total moral bankruptcy.

maestro,

The question then becomes - is it possible to eat your cake and still lose weight...?

How So?

maestro wrote:Consider the possibility of a higher emotional center:
This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling intelligently, rather than it being generated by circumstance. Thus it is really a part of the logical mind as well except that it can work with rapid speed, as compared to the thought based system.

Actually what you are talking about is present in Buddhism, although I'd be careful in calling it an emotion.

Now in Buddhism, I have never seen this idea of the higher emotional center. The furthest Buddhism goes is that feelings arise and pass away without any attachment. This led me to speculate whether the Buddha stopped at one level short of the real treasure, that is an intelligent emotional apparatus, that would allow one to engage with anything very skillfully. Is that also a reason why Buddhism is an ascetic path, which seems to prefer retirement from the world.

Buddhism is not static( as Buddha himself noted ) and has gone through several transformations through the centuries. The core teachings of Buddhism essentially deal with reaching Nirvana which is a complete seperation of pure subject and object. This is still embodied in the oldest practiced form of Buddhism, Theravada. Mahayana Buddhism( Tibet, Zen, Chen, etc... ) went one further through the union of Nirvana and Samsara, also known as the non-dual state. You might have noted that Mahayana Buddhism builds ontop of the old foundation which is a stage all practitioners still go through. That is, you must first differentiate Nirvana and Samsara before you can truly integrate it.

That's the condensed generalization anyways.

yougene wrote:That is, you must first differentiate Nirvana and Samsara before you can truly integrate it.

That is so very true.

In my experience, this is a teaching which has virtually disappeared from the world today. Certainly, I can no longer detect it in modern Buddhism.

Is this your experience too?

-

It depends on what you mean by modern Buddhism.

Mahayana Buddhism is the most successful form of Buddhism, probably due to the nature of the non-dual. Take the Tibetan version for example, instead of pushing out the old tribal pantheon it embraces and interiorises the pantheon into its structure. A classic embodiment of the non-dual. It's probably a defining pattern of Mahayana and would be interesting what form it will take in the West in a couple hundred years time. Mahayana is still alive and well, system still intact.

With that said, you do see alot of polarization, especially here in the West. People are often hellbent on either transcending samsara, or embracing samsara but not both( which would be making the full circle ).

I'm not sure if that's quite what you were asking but there it is.

I wasn't really thinking in terms of schools of Buddhism, or the division between Mahayana and Hinayana.

I was thinking of all forms of Buddhism in the modern era, with its heavy emphasis on guru-worship, rituals, submission, anti-rational attitudes, compassion, emotional heavens, worldly pleasures, etc. Hopefully there are exceptions, but I have yet to come across a modern form of Buddhism which seriously focuses on rational understanding and the development of enlightened comprehension - that is to say, on the ability to distinguish between Samsara and Nirvana, as you put it.

Tibetan Buddhism is one of the worst culprits in this, in my experience. At least as it is expressed in the West. It is almost entirely overrun by women, and enlightened comprehension is the last thing on their minds.

-

yougene wrote:Take the Tibetan version for example, instead of pushing out the old tribal pantheon it embraces and interiorises the pantheon into its structure. A classic embodiment of the non-dual.

And how is that useful? Are you suggesting that one must embrace everything? What is the use of intelligence then?

DQ wrote:At least as it is expressed in the West. It is almost entirely overrun by women, and enlightened comprehension is the last thing on their minds.

In the West, women are more apt to think "I want to be seen to be a Buddhist," rather than have any real interest in the teachings of Gautama Buddha or Nagarjuna. Much like Madonna espousing Kabbalism. With little understanding and even less genuine respect, they wear religions like jewelry.

Mahayana is the worst of the lot. It tries to act cool, with its mysterious koans and crazy wisdom. I think it is more style than substance, and perhaps enlightenment is kept shrouded in mystery in Zen because nobody really had a clue.

Now Theravada is closer to what the Buddha would have actually taught, and it does have some substance. My doubt is whether the Buddha was actually enlightened himself?

This is because he got his enlightenment suddenly while sitting under a tree, after which he went from a fool to a Buddha (one who knows). This binary valued enlightenment is highly suspicious because in nature one observes a continuity of states and not a sudden jump (please do not bring quantum in here, we are talking about the macroscopic world okay?). Maybe all he had was some grand cosmic vision after sitting in hunger for so many days, and he has sent millions of humans on a wild goose chase from then onwards.

I was thinking of all forms of Buddhism in the modern era, with its heavy emphasis on guru-worship, rituals, submission, anti-rational attitudes, compassion, emotional heavens, worldly pleasures, etc. Hopefully there are exceptions, but I have yet to come across a modern form of Buddhism which seriously focuses on rational understanding and the development of enlightened comprehension - that is to say, on the ability to distinguish between Samsara and Nirvana, as you put it.

The thing is, Nirvana refers to a very precise state that is not dependent on rational capacity. It's a complete differentiation of pure being and form, with cognition falling in the category of form. You do not have to be a rational person to experience this state, and it's present in one form or another in all the major traditions.

I do think that traditions in general have fallen behind the currents of change but I wouldn't go so far as to completely dismiss the structures of the pre-modern world. Any system that focused on rational understanding in centuries past would have likely died. Rationality is a product of Formal Operational cognition( as Piaget would have it ) which truly made its mark as a meaningfully sized minority during the enlightenment. Trying to appeal to people on this level before this time would have been functionally inappropriate.

And how is that useful? Are you suggesting that one must embrace everything? What is the use of intelligence then?

1) Enlightenment is being as everything so yes I'm suggesting one must embrace everything.

2) I'm assuming you mean rationality by intelligence. Rationality is useful for alot of things, especially making sense of Samsara. Rationality however is not definitive of who we are. First and foremost we are sentience, that is, a phenomenological space in which rationality arises. It's just one of many tools.

3) Referring to "How is [Mahayan Structures] useful"
In terms of functional fit, the Mahayan structure is in many ways genius. How many other traditions do you know that can peacefully assimilate a regions culture rather than brutally conquer it? On a tangent, alot of what people find backwards in these traditions was actually stage appropriate at one point.

maestro wrote: Mahayana is the worst of the lot. It tries to act cool, with its mysterious koans and crazy wisdom. I think it is more style than substance, and perhaps enlightenment is kept shrouded in mystery in Zen because nobody really had a clue.

Mahayana deals in several phenomenological states whereas Theravada deals with two( Nirvana and Samsara ). I have the upmost respect for Theravada though. Completely stripped to the backbone essentials, it's worthy of admiration. It's a great core framework( the greatest in my opinion ), it's just not complete.