--- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unc:The judgment is purely about the karmic effect of indulging >> in these emotions. Indulging in anger and fear brings the >> perceiver down and creates negative karma, that which >> lengthens the process of realization. Indulging in compas- >> sion and love uplifts, and shortens the process of real- >> ization. Purely pragmatic, with no moral judgment involved >> at all. > > I was not proposing to indulging with those emotions, rather the > opposite, containing, confronting, containing and transforming them > instead of suppressing them. Suppression is an automatic process > which very easily happens, when you have decided to put your > attention away from those emotions.
Continuing the discussion (and I really see it as a discussion, not an argument or an attempt to convince anyone of anything), IS suppression the same as simply shifting one's attention? Think TM. When you become aware that you are on other thoughts and effortlessly come back to the mantra, are you "suppressing" those thoughts? > In that case those emotions don't get > transformed, and in some subtle way somebody else can receive them. We must agree to disagree on this. I've already stated my view, that there is an infinite supply of ALL emotions available to ALL people at ALL times. Nothing either adds to or subtracts from the supply of "available emotions." > And that creates karma. Indulging in compassion can also lead on a > subtle level to mood making. I appreciate the Tibetans and they > have a great wisdom tradition. But why does that nation live in > such a deep poverty and misery. By whose standards? Poverty, yes, but that says absolutely nothing about happiness. The Tibetans I have met have always struck me as the happiest people I have ever met. And this is even more surprising given the circumstances they're dealing with. > Isn't there karmic effect working there. Maybe, in terms of the Chinese conquest of Tibet. I don't really have privy to the inner workings of long-term karma, so I can't say. :-) >>> Irmeli:> There are ideals that in an awakened state you don't >>> anymore have those emotions. >> >> Unc: Not in this particular tradition. One *continues* to exper- >> ience these emotions. One simply has developed the control >> not to have to indulge in them. > > Irmeli: That is very good and in that case the person talks about > precisely the same thing as I am. There is however possibly a > problem embedded in the control of not idulging. The emotions won't > necessarily get really transformed that way. The people I am talking about have no interest in "transforming" emotions. They simply focus on those emotions that are most productive, for themselves and the world. I doubt they'd believe that emotions CAN be "transformed." Again, thinking of it in terms of TM. You are lost in thoughts of icky things. You realize this and effortlessly come back to the mantra. Thirty seconds later you're in bliss. Did you "transform" the icky thoughts into something else? I don't think so. > However it is an > important step to learn to do. When you contain and confront an > emotion, it changes its character rather fast. There is no indulging > present, but no avoidance of it either. I'm really not talking about avoidance; that's your interpretation of what I'm saying. I'm talking about being *comfortable* with whatever emotions one experiences, not beating oneself up for having them, but at the same time not dwelling on them, even to theoretically "confront" them, for very long. If your purpose in life is to spend as much of your time doing nice things for others as you can, you don't spend a lot of that time "processing" your own emotions; you just get back to work. > Irmeli: What does POV mean? My dictionary does not know the word. Point of view. > My way is not to indulge in any emotion. But my approach is closer > to MMY's: I just allow the emotion naturally appear. When it can be > clearly seen, I start to transform it. This is a very important > distinction: We all have many subtle emotional states embedded in > ourselves we are not aware of. The emotional state has to be allowed > to come into awareness in order to be able to transform it. You > cannot work with something you are not aware of. If it works for you, cool. I personally don't believe that emotions can be "transformed." You merely gain some perspec- tive on them and then allow them to go their way, and get back to living in the moment, in different emotions. No "transformation" took place, merely a shift of state of attention. > Regrettably I have observed some subtle level mood making of > positive emotions like compassion in the Tibetan Buddhist I > have met. Cool. I have experience primarily real compassion. >> Unc:The Tibetan view is very different. There is NO state of >> attention that one is "victim" to. One ALWAYS has a choice. >> That is what free will is ABOUT. Preferring one state of >> attention to another doesn't add to the "collective energy >> soup." It can't. All of these emotions are always there at >> all times, in infinite amounts. So are all the "positive" >> emotions, in equally infinite amounts. All one is doing is >> making a choice as to which to focus on and give expression >> to and allow to generate karma. > > Irmeli: What does "There is NO state of attention that one > is "victim" to" mean.? There is no emotion that has any power over you. You have the ability to dump it and move into another state of attention at all times. > If you feel you are victim of something, you transform that emotion > or energetic structure and the victim hood dissolves. We may be just talking in different languages. You seem to see these emotions as *yours*, something that *you* can "transform." I see them as merely different states of attention that have nothing to do with "me," except that they happen to be passing through me at any given moment. I have complete choice as to which I choose to allow to pass through quickly and which I allow to dawdle. > The collective energy field is a very tricky thing. Different > nations have partly their own collective energy field. I have > had all my adult life a certain kind of understanding of how > wars are formed. And I have not yet seen any need to make changes > to it. The theory is this: > A nation is drawn to a war or wars, when in its collective > consciousness there is a lot of suppressed anger and fury and fear. It's as good a theory as any. > When people cannot confront and transform these emotions internally, > they start to act them out uncontrollably. On the collective level > it means wars. The only way on the long run to avoid wars is to > learn to contain, face and transform those emotions. I've known too many people who, in psychology or whatever trip, "confront" their emotions on a regular basis. My impression is that they stay in those emotional sets. "What you focus on, you become," and all that. > Tibet is not a good example on this. Somehow the Tibetans managed to > magnetize the Chinese to occupy their country in spite of their long > tradition of powerful internal techniques. There must have been some > energetic imbalance in the collective consciousness of that country. Or just jealousy, or the desire to increase the size of China, or whatever. The Chinese have been trying to occupy Tibet for all of recorded history. They finally did it, that's all. >>> Irmeli: Fear and anger (fury) are very important emotions for >>> life to >>> sustain itself. You cannot live without them, you can only >>> disconnect your conscious mind from those emotions and push them >>> to your subconsciousness or to the collective consciousness to >>> be expressed by others, often not too constructively. >> >> Unc:That is a very Western POV, and possibly valid. I am presenting >> a different POV. I'm not trying to sell it, merely to present it. > > Irmeli: Fear warns of danger That is true. Then you immediately drop the fear and shift to a more practical state of attention. You are talking to a former martial artist. You don't take your fear with you into the battle; you merely use it to warn you that one is about to occur. >>> anger helps us to put legitimate limits, so >>> that others cannot use us. > >> Unc:And both produce karma. The Tibetan view is that we, as >> perceivers >> and actors, are in charge of what karma we wish to produce. We >> are not slaves to which emotion is predominant at any given time, >> and have a clear choice as to the state of attention we bring to >> any situation, and thus a choice as to the karma our thoughts >> and actions produce in that situation. > > Irmeli: Confronting and transforming an emotion does NOT mean being > hooked to that emotion. In the point of view of the tradition I am speaking of, if the emotion is still present, you are still hooked to it. If you are "looking back" dispassionately at an emotion that you just had, you are in a different state of attention, aren't you? The emotion is no longer present. They're both just theories that we're spouting. Probably NEITHER is correct. Like I said, I'm not trying to sell mine. I'm just putting it out there for others to bounce off of. Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
