oust the separate 'feeler'. If intelligence displaces the separate
observer, feelings are free to negotiate the state of what is. The
energy of thought and feeling is set free. Freedom is intelligence.
Is love. Is beauty. All that which knowledge can't touch, though
we do have words for it. Every language has those words. Good
words only if we leave them undefined.
On 14-Oct-05, at 5:01 AM, James Jackson wrote:
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>[James:] What is your experiential understanding into the nature of our</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>suffering which you are talking about?</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>mark: An experiential understanding does not imply that we can't explain it</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>to others or critically and rationally explore what we are saying and what</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>we</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>have come to accept as true. Indeed, this critical examination is very</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>important</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>as we have a strong tendency to delude ourselves. So we need to</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>look into what we have come to accept as true, for they may</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>not be true at all, even if we are convinced by our experience that it is</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>so.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Here being open to the questioning of others,</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>when that is genuine and not dismissive arrogant contentiousness, is</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>a way that we can begin to question and look at these things ourselves.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Without that, what we experientially understand is on very shaky</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>grounds, for the mind is caught up in so many illusions.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>From here, experientially and logically, the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>emotions is inherently no different than sensuality.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Both emotions and the senses are natural, organically</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>human, and so they are essential for well being and</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>simple enjoyment.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>But both emotional and sensual experiencing</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>have become twisted and damaged in a split in</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>consciousness. We can observe that sensual enjoyments</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>such as that of eating a wonderful meal becomes part of our</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>escape from emptiness, part of our self-absorbed vanity,</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>our self-isolation, part of our deep insensitivity to living.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Is it not this fragmentation of consciousness that is</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>destroying us?</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>JJ: It is psychological thought or emotion-backed thought that causes the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>problem. A sensual experience can also be ruined by emotion-backed</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>thought. The sensual experience in itself is not fragmented without the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>emotion-backed thought about it. Even thought itself such as factual</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>thought is not fragmented without emotions. So, there you have it, it is</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>emotions that are the culprit and not the senses.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>mark: The sensual experience is fragmented not because of</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> some emotion backed thought (though that can also be happening),</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>but because of the split in consciousness between observer</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>and observed, a split that is not actual but psychological.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>That is the split between an "I" and the sensing of the object.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> A split that destroys relationship, destroys immediacy,</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>that brings in past psychological memories and interprets</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>experiencing as a function of what I am. There</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>may not be any emotional content and still there is the same</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> disorder. </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> rob: not emotions per se, but emotional hurt is the culprit.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>and that brings in thought/memory. unexamined hurt festering</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>below the surface and creeping in when we least wish it did ;)</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>mark: To be clear, it is not only "hurt", it may also be pleasure.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>And it is not simply hurt or pleasure, which may be</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>simply happening, but an interposed,</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> projected content into present experiencing that colors it,</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>marks it "mine", adds it to the warehouse of stored</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>hurts and pleasures., and gives it meaning based on those</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>stored hurts and pleasures that I am identified with. </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>JJ: Right, it is not the emotions per se but the feeler festering below the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>surface from which the emotions arise and that brings in thought/memory as</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>you said. Also, I agree that it is the unexamined feelings coming from the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>feeler that cause the problem. I was talking about emotions only because</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>that is what Mark and I were discussing so I started from there to see if we</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>could reach an agreement on that.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>mark: Feelings do not fester without a feeler. It is the separation itself</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> of feeling and feeler that is the festering, that is the source of the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>disorder. We falsely believe that the problem lies in the feeling, but</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>the problem is in the separation of the feeling, which is simultaneously</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>the projection of the center. That is also why in the examination</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>or exposing of feelings there is not a healing. For in the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>examination or exposing there can still be that split, still the</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>illusion of feeling as separate and objectified, still</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>the examiner, the exposer, the self-analyzer. </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>JJ: If there is no separation of feeling then you are still left with the feeling which means there is a feeler/me which is the root of the problem and as long as this root exists there is going to be suffering and violence unless you want to stick your head in the sand and say it is only because of the separation. </x-tad-bigger>
