--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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/
