Moderator: Dan~
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I disagree. Buddhist and Buddhist communities require the disengagement of emotions from expression and the disidentification from emotions. And if you express a range of emotions, you will find yourself under social pressures. The injunctions against desire are even more explicit. Yes, certain functions of the neocortex are also disidentified with, but the neocortex, for example sensory perception and control and focus. It is a top down control system - as are many religions, but very much focused on learning not to embody and express emotions.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Of course many buddhists just do the disidentification and suppression mainly in meditation, but the goals is to do this all the time. Whose goal? Moving around in mindfulness, disidentified with emotions and thoughts (the latter not all that the neorcotex is) and controlling expression. You get good at that the emotional body does not develop and it does not participate in the life of the individual.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:They are attached to not identifying and expressing emotions. Try going in to one of these communities and temples and being a passionate, emotionally expressive person. You will find that they judge and have a dualism at the heart of their supposed non-judgemental acceptance, and it will not be pleasant, even if they behave 'calmly.'
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I have been to Buddhist organizations all over the West and East, and it's a rule. These guys are not like, say, shamans or druids or pagans, for example.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Modern society? It has been the rule in many rural Eastern societies for a couple of thousand years. IOW people living off the land either in hunter or fishing type sustenance groups or farmers. It is meant as a universal cure for the ailment of being human.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Neolithics very directly accepted his or her desires and passions. Not that you would know, but granted. And we can see this in hunter gatherer societies also that survived up until contact with Europe and anthropologists. The seeing desire as problematic would be alien to them. Like I said, that's an aspect of Buddhist doctrine, not something primative man knew inately. Their religions were often quite expressive and interactions tended to be quite passionate, especially with other tribes or groups.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I did, for years. Me too! Good discipline. It did not help me Me neither!, except to the extent that I learned what I do not want and what I do not want to disidentify with. I agree. As I said before, I've got ADD and this works counterproductively with meditation. If I've learned anything, it's that meditation is not the only way. I understand and have sympathy for their fear of emotions, especially the deep, cut off ones that people generally avoid and do not even realize are their. I would guess they noticed these emotions, deep in their, and decided the best thing to do was suppress, disidentify, control emotional and physical expression, and that the full self could not be enlightened, so they labeled certain parts obstacles, not the buddha (though always also the Buddha). I would agree with that assessment if that is indeed what they are doing. But despite my sympathy I don't like that path or set of paths. And they are not honest about what they do. Not unique to Buddhists. Many teachers and masters will say that we should accept our emotions, but they tend not to mean the so called negative ones, and they certainly to not mean expressing them. Observe them. Which is not the same as suppressing them. It's like if you say you accept your kids, but you do not let them make noise or move with passion. It's ain't love, and in the end it ain't compassion.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:And just as you think one cannot judge it in the negative if one has actually practiced it, one cannot judge it in the positive either. Absolutely! I do think many people do not want their full emotional presence - I mean just look at how much we distract and medicate our emotions away - and if they choose that path, then they are choosing what they want and that is the right choice for them.
But it's not my.
I'm not really up on Buddhist practices or adherence either, but I do find inspiration in Buddhism. A key factor for me is to not align myself with Buddhism (or any "ism"). So while I will say I am a fan of Buddhism, I will not say I am a Buddhist.
I want my limbic system fully integrated and expressive, not compassionately watched through a telescope while holding a single position for hours, perhaps even having someone hit you with a stick if your back is not straight enough - the for Zen fans. Of course Zen is just one branch and I doubt many do that anymore especially in the West. But really, I like the honesty of that version. That is what is happening inside anyway.
Gib wrote: Is that what they tell you they're doing? Learning not to express emotion?
Finding yourself under social pressure for going against the norm or defying expectations isn't that surprising. That's the human aspect of the Buddhist. It comes with every human institution. It comes even in Christianity, one of the world's most judgemental religions (IMNSHO), despite passages from scripture that prescribe the opposite ("judge not, lest ye be judged"). But I don't think there's anything in Buddhist doctrine that says: thou shalt judge those who express emotion.
And don't get me wrong. I celebrate emotion too. I've just found that certain techniques (some Buddhist, some not) have helped to exercise control over one's mind, which *can* help to control certain emotions.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Of course many buddhists just do the disidentification and suppression mainly in meditation, but the goals is to do this all the time. Whose goal? The goal of the practices, the goals of the experienced members of the community, the goal of meditation as expressed by masters.
I've heard Buddhist say the same thing: the goal is to remain in that meditative state all the time. However, this goal is still a choice up to the individual.
And there will always be group think and conformity in any religion, which means a sharing of similar goals (often with social pressure to boot). Personally, I don't know how anything can get done by remaining in that state all the time, but maybe I'm imagining that state wrong. In any case, gaining practice at something means making it more easy to do all the time, so it wouldn't be surprising if many Buddhists who have gained a ton of practice at meditation can do it easily 90% of the time. And if you can do it easily 90% of the time, why not? I would agree with your sentiments if it came to practitioners who were forcing themselves to do it all the time, and if it's forced, I don't think you're really doing it. It's like faking it, and nothing more than suppressing emotions and thoughts (which I don't think is the same thing as what Buddhists are doing).
Karpel Tunnel wrote:They are attached to not identifying and expressing emotions. Try going in to one of these communities and temples and being a passionate, emotionally expressive person. You will find that they judge and have a dualism at the heart of their supposed non-judgemental acceptance, and it will not be pleasant, even if they behave 'calmly.'
I'm not sure what this has to do with social engagement. Being attached to not identifying and expressing emotions is not the same as being attached to social engagements. And I've met lots of Buddhists who have absolutely no qualms expressing emotion ugh, creepy, and I would say, pathological... so long as it's happy, loving emotions. <-- They don't mind showing these when they engage with people socially.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I have been to Buddhist organizations all over the West and East, and it's a rule. These guys are not like, say, shamans or druids or pagans, for example.
It's not too surprising that this would be the case. Of course, it is an essential part of Buddhism. I am not expressing surprise, but rather describing what is there. And even though I don't think there's anything in Buddhist doctrine that says one must suppress their emotions or that one must judge those who don't, it's sort of implied in the sense that the Buddhist goal involves detachment from emotions. It's very likely that people will associate that with emotions being bad, maybe even morally bad, but that's more a tendency of the nature of human interpretation than formal doctrine.
I would say that those who practice suppressing emotion or denying it are not following the practice properly. That will be news to every single master I met. They often say things about accepting emotions, but if you are expressive, they judge it. They cannot tolerate it. I would say that the practice would require being aware of and acknowledging one's emotions, but just not reacting to them, and specifically only when one is meditating. This practice is suppose to cultivate a calmer mind, but this is supposed to be an effect, not an obligation. However, as with pretty much all religions, if you don't exhibit the effects you're suppose to experience or display according to theory, there is a tendency for others to think there is something wrong with you. <-- This is what puts on the pressure. This is what makes adherents feel obligated.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume rural life, or "living off the land," is the same as living as primitive man did.
I'm also starting to doubt that you understand what I mean by "demythologizing". There is the mythical state of being "enlightened" that Buddhists strive towards,
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Neolithics very directly accepted his or her desires and passions. Not that you would know, but granted. And we can see this in hunter gatherer societies also that survived up until contact with Europe and anthropologists. The seeing desire as problematic would be alien to them. Like I said, that's an aspect of Buddhist doctrine, not something primative man knew inately. Their religions were often quite expressive and interactions tended to be quite passionate, especially with other tribes or groups.
If you want to criticize Buddhists, this is one point I will agree with you on; the Buddhist ought to meditate on his inner states as well as the outer world--his emotions and thoughts--for those are just as real, and therefore just as subject to awareness, as the state of the world in the here and now. You describe a certain brand of Buddhist who wants to suppress or deny his emotions--I agree that this is unhealthy and is more likely to backfire--but the Buddhist I have in mind is the one who admits and is not deterred about feeling his emotions, but also practices control over his emotional reactions; it's self-control that this Buddhist practices, not denial or cutting himself off from his emotions. <-- The latter leads to less control, the former to more control.
. Observe them. Which is not the same as suppressing them
That depends. Are my children misbehaving? Getting themselves in trouble? What if their passion leads them to want to play in traffic? Am I not accepting my children by holding them back from doing so?
I think a distinction ought to be made between suppressing one's passions and suppressing one's behavior. emotions are behavior. They are not acts on others, they are expressive behavior and what is felt inside and identified with. Buddhist squeeze a core facet of emotions, which in turn, over time, dulls even the feeling of them I agree that suppressing one's passions is not healthy, but we all need to control our behavior, and the more control we have, the more control we have over our lives, which ultimately leads to more happiness and peace.
gib wrote:the Buddhist ought to meditate on his inner states as well as the outer world--his emotions and thoughts--for those are just as real,
Fixed Cross wrote:But Gib, isn't it at the essence of Buddhism that neither of these things are real?
gib wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:But Gib, isn't it at the essence of Buddhism that neither of these things are real?
Yes it is, which is probably why most Buddhists don't bother looking within. The goal is to wipe away illusion and to maintain awareness of reality.
I'm not a Buddhist though. I don't think of thoughts and emotions as illusions. They contribute to reality just as much as our perceptions of the outer world and therefore deserve attention and focus as much as the outer world. The trick, for me at least, is to not let your thoughts and emotions run away with you. You still want to satisfy your emotions, just as a parent might want to satisfy a child's wishes, but he doesn't do so by taking his instructions from the child.
On this point, I've always found it a bit confusing how a Buddhist can say that thought and emotion are illusory and yet enlightenment is the realization that all is consciousness? Do they mean consciousness without thought and emotion? If thought and emotion are illusory, are they artifacts of mind but not consciousness (as in, they are mental but do not count as awareness of reality)? Not sure how that one works.
Fixed Cross wrote:Traditionally and dogmatically it is more dual than that. Reality appears as soon as the emotions and the mind have been cleansed. The doors of perception, or the veils of Maya.
What these masters mean with cleansing the mind is to eliminate all that is particular from it, as particularity gives difference, which gives tension, and doubt, The same goes for emotions. The result of penetrating the veil of Maya is very real. "The void", the undifferentiated heart-mind, where emotion and thought don't exist as separate realms, is empty of thingness and only consists of presence.
The result is extreme bliss, better than any high you'll get from drugs. Maybe not if you like it warped, but the pleasure is infinite.
...
Neither is the Buddhist mindset interested in the outer world - they see all physical manifestation as Maya. They are interested in what its beyond, the experience of the pure principle.
...
Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.
gib wrote:I don't understand. Is the undifferentiated simply a melding of all emotion, thought, sensation, and anything that can be beheld by awareness? Is it something beyond even all that?
When I would meditate, I would understand the technique to be the avoidance of distraction by thought and emotion, to focus my attention on the here and now, on my current surroundings. That, for me, meant focusing on what I could see, hear, feel, etc. in the moment, what was before me, what surrounded me. This was equivalent, as far as I was concerned, with focusing on my sensory experiences.
There are meditations where one focuses on sensory input, but I would say most practices focus on, yes, the here and now, but not away from thoughts and emotions, rather on anything sensory, thinking related, emotional. There would be no prioritizing of sensory over thoughts and emotions. They are all just considered phenomena.[/quote]Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.
Of course it is. You have to have meditated for a long time to have that experience. I wouldn't say beyond, I would say underlying.But if the point is to focus on something beyond this--as though one was to focus on pure awareness itself without focusing on one's surroundings or what one was sensing in the moment, then this is a vacuous concept to me.
gib wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Traditionally and dogmatically it is more dual than that. Reality appears as soon as the emotions and the mind have been cleansed. The doors of perception, or the veils of Maya.
What these masters mean with cleansing the mind is to eliminate all that is particular from it, as particularity gives difference, which gives tension, and doubt, The same goes for emotions. The result of penetrating the veil of Maya is very real. "The void", the undifferentiated heart-mind, where emotion and thought don't exist as separate realms, is empty of thingness and only consists of presence.
The result is extreme bliss, better than any high you'll get from drugs. Maybe not if you like it warped, but the pleasure is infinite.
...
Neither is the Buddhist mindset interested in the outer world - they see all physical manifestation as Maya. They are interested in what its beyond, the experience of the pure principle.
...
Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.
I don't understand. Is the undifferentiated simply a melding of all emotion, thought, sensation, and anything that can be beheld by awareness? Is it something beyond even all that?
When I would meditate, I would understand the technique to be the avoidance of distraction by thought and emotion, to focus my attention on the here and now, on my current surroundings. That, for me, meant focusing on what I could see, hear, feel, etc. in the moment, what was before me, what surrounded me. This was equivalent, as far as I was concerned, with focusing on my sensory experiences.
But if the point is to focus on something beyond this--as though one was to focus on pure awareness itself without focusing on one's surroundings or what one was sensing in the moment, then this is a vacuous concept to me. What is "pure awareness" such that I may focus on it? What is it to "just be aware" if I don't know what I'm supposed to be aware of? It's almost like saying: focus on the unfocusable.
Fixed Cross wrote:It sounds like you never read any Buddhist literature. What I'm saying is like "in basketball you need to put the ball in the basket" but for Buddhism.
It isn't anything original.
Fixed Cross wrote:But yeah it is certainly damn hard. As I said it would take me hours of preparation each day. As it does all Buddhist monks.
Yoga is the discipline of soothing the body so that the mind can observe itself, not distracted by objects. It exists only to prepare for the type of meditation I describe.
gib wrote:FC,
Thanks for the plethora of information!
Don't be offended if I say this is difficult to understand. I would think it's supposed to be difficult. You're talking about something that is beyond perception and experience (or an amalgamation of all perception and experience... still not sure which it is)--like Kant's ding an sich--it's almost incomprehensible by definition. If you understand it, that's something to be proud of.
I have not. And you're right, I have not read up on a lot of Buddhist literature (well, I have, but that was years, and years, and years ago, and I'm sure my memory is distorted).
I think I'll wait 'til next life before dedicating myself to as intensive a discipline as you describe. In this life, I'm all used up. All the forces of this life have a piece of me... using me like a cheep whore... and I have no time to be enlightened.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]