Understanding Emotions

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by enigma » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:36 am

great2be wrote:
enigma wrote:All emotions are caused by untrue ideas. See if you can discover the the untrue ideas behind the positive emotions as well. Grasping one and rejecting the other as untrue is an attempt to cut the end off of a stick so that it has just one end.
Please illustrate.
Thanks
You may be happy because you get what you want, and yet the want, itself, is illusory and is based on the notion that you are a person who lacks something, which is also illusory. You may feel loving toward someone because they fulfill your needs (or fantasies), and this is not real Love but rather based on illusion.

Positive emotions are every bit as illusory as negative ones, and are literally defined by the negative ones. As they say, two sides of the same coin. The notion that negative emotions are based on false ideas and positive ones just occur naturally, is also a false idea. They all occur naturally, and are all based on false ideas.

the key master
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by the key master » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:34 am

Enigma said,
The notion that negative emotions are based on false ideas and positive ones just occur naturally, is also a false idea. They all occur naturally, and are all based on false ideas.
They all occur naturally. 8) Who is this guy? Hes good.

alex
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:28 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by alex » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:33 am

So I'm guessing you're not referring to the feelings of love and happiness that arise in presence? Or the feeling of love when I gaze at my son? There are no thoughts behind that love, it just is.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by karmarider » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:39 pm

We would like to believe that love is a positive emotion which expresses the goodness and connections of our relationships. We want to believe love as love is described by poets. We want to hold on to the belief that love is something we control and target.

The clearest description of love I have felt is from Anthony de Mello, who said love is the complete absence of fear.

It's not a description which is particularly attractive to the mind. The mind asks, where is the poetry in that? Where is the deep sense of attachment and sacrifice and goodness, as opposed to badness which is not love? Where is the "positive emotion" in this description?

And yet, if we go into it, it is a beautiful because it doesn't describe a positive emotion. Emotions, positive or negative, are ideas.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by enigma » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:49 am

alex wrote:So I'm guessing you're not referring to the feelings of love and happiness that arise in presence? Or the feeling of love when I gaze at my son? There are no thoughts behind that love, it just is.
Genuine Love flows in the absence of the one who would give or receive love. Where are you in those moments when you gaze at your son and something flows unbidden and uncontrived? Where are 'you' to be found in that?
Likewise, Joy or Peace may arise in presence, since to be fully present is to be totally 'absent minded'.

Ultimately, Love, Joy and Peace are nondualistic, and become indistinguishable, one from the other. This is not really feeling, it IS what you ARE; the nature of Beingness.

User avatar
great2be
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:58 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by great2be » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:31 am

enigma wrote:You may be happy because you get what you want, and yet the want, itself, is illusory and is based on the notion that you are a person who lacks something, which is also illusory.
That's not happiness, that's pleasure.
enigma wrote:You may feel loving toward someone because they fulfill your needs (or fantasies), and this is not real Love but rather based on illusion.
That's also pleasure and the feeling of a reciprocated contract.
enigma wrote:Positive emotions are every bit as illusory as negative ones, and are literally defined by the negative ones. As they say, two sides of the same coin. The notion that negative emotions are based on false ideas and positive ones just occur naturally, is also a false idea. They all occur naturally, and are all based on false ideas.
And then you say
enigma wrote:Genuine Love flows in the absence of the one who would give or receive love. Where are you in those moments when you gaze at your son and something flows unbidden and uncontrived? Where are 'you' to be found in that?
Likewise, Joy or Peace may arise in presence, since to be fully present is to be totally 'absent minded'.

Ultimately, Love, Joy and Peace are nondualistic, and become indistinguishable, one from the other. This is not really feeling, it IS what you ARE; the nature of Beingness.
All the positive emotions in that list are only true when they are the result of non-dual living.
When experience is driven by the ego illusion, then none of the positive emotions are truly present.
There is self-seeking in them and as soon as they are thwarted then the negatives soon manifest.
Has anyone not seen so-called love turn into hate when thwarted?

The negatives never exist in a pure state, they are always the result of untrue ideas.
The positives only truly exist when living is not driven by illusion.
An imaginary seeker, seeking an imaginary goal.
Realise the nature of imagination and the fallacious effort ends.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing it's tail?

What happens when the dog runs faster?

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by enigma » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:08 am

great2be wrote:
enigma wrote:You may be happy because you get what you want, and yet the want, itself, is illusory and is based on the notion that you are a person who lacks something, which is also illusory.
That's not happiness, that's pleasure.
enigma wrote:You may feel loving toward someone because they fulfill your needs (or fantasies), and this is not real Love but rather based on illusion.
That's also pleasure and the feeling of a reciprocated contract.
enigma wrote:Positive emotions are every bit as illusory as negative ones, and are literally defined by the negative ones. As they say, two sides of the same coin. The notion that negative emotions are based on false ideas and positive ones just occur naturally, is also a false idea. They all occur naturally, and are all based on false ideas.
And then you say
enigma wrote:Genuine Love flows in the absence of the one who would give or receive love. Where are you in those moments when you gaze at your son and something flows unbidden and uncontrived? Where are 'you' to be found in that?
Likewise, Joy or Peace may arise in presence, since to be fully present is to be totally 'absent minded'.

Ultimately, Love, Joy and Peace are nondualistic, and become indistinguishable, one from the other. This is not really feeling, it IS what you ARE; the nature of Beingness.
All the positive emotions in that list are only true when they are the result of non-dual living.
When experience is driven by the ego illusion, then none of the positive emotions are truly present.
There is self-seeking in them and as soon as they are thwarted then the negatives soon manifest.
Has anyone not seen so-called love turn into hate when thwarted?

The negatives never exist in a pure state, they are always the result of untrue ideas.
The positives only truly exist when living is not driven by illusion.
How odd. I would say all those positives you listed can be driven entirely by illusion, and almost invariably are.
I also don't know what "non-dual living" is. Do you? Is there a special nondual place where that can be done?

What I referred to as nondualistic Love, Joy, Peace is not the positive half of dualistic feeling. They are conceptual pointers to a non-feeling feeling. The Peace is spoken of as "The Peace that passes all understanding", because it is NOT what is thought of as dualistic peace. From the 'nondual perspective' positive and negative feelings are transcended. As such, they may all be enjoyed because the meaningful distinction is lost, though the distinction itself remains. When you watch a sad movie and sadness arises, you don't call this negative. When you go bungee jumping and fear and excitement arise and 'calm' is nowhere to be found, how do you know whether to call it positive or negative so that you can know whether you are doing the nondual living thingy? Have you ever caught yourself clinging to the heartache of lost love? If so, are you clinging because it is positive or negative? Even in your dualistic living, you're uncertain how to categorize feelings.

User avatar
great2be
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:58 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by great2be » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:57 am

enigma wrote:How odd. I would say all those positives you listed can be driven entirely by illusion, and almost invariably are.
The positives that most people experience are generally driven by illusion.
Not necessarily though.
There is the possibility of positive without illusion, I called that 'true positive' above.
The negatives are ALWAYS driven by illusion.
enigma wrote:I also don't know what "non-dual living" is. Do you? Is there a special nondual place where that can be done?
The world is non-dual - that's where we live!
Illusions only create the appearance of duality.
enigma wrote:What I referred to as nondualistic Love, Joy, Peace is not the positive half of dualistic feeling. They are conceptual pointers to a non-feeling feeling.
Non-feeling feelings???
enigma wrote:From the 'nondual perspective' positive and negative feelings are transcended.
You call it non-dual perspective after I called it non-dual living, and yet you say you don't know what that is - curious!
enigma wrote:When you watch a sad movie and sadness arises, you don't call this negative.

Being affected by movies is an indication of the ease with which one gets caught in illusions.
enigma wrote:When you go bungee jumping and fear and excitement arise and 'calm' is nowhere to be found, how do you know whether to call it positive or negative so that you can know whether you are doing the nondual living thingy?

Haven't been bungee jumping, but excitement has arisen without fear and the associated illusions generating it.
enigma wrote:Have you ever caught yourself clinging to the heartache of lost love? If so, are you clinging because it is positive or negative?

No, love cannot be lost.
Clinging to any ideas or remembrances is illusion in action.
enigma wrote:Even in your dualistic living, you're uncertain how to categorize feelings.
Was there some 'edge' experienced when writing this?
If so, what was that caused by?
An imaginary seeker, seeking an imaginary goal.
Realise the nature of imagination and the fallacious effort ends.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing it's tail?

What happens when the dog runs faster?

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by enigma » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:28 am

great2be wrote:
The world is non-dual - that's where we live!
Illusions only create the appearance of duality.
The world of form is dualistic.


enigma wrote:From the 'nondual perspective' positive and negative feelings are transcended.
You call it non-dual perspective after I called it non-dual living, and yet you say you don't know what that is - curious!
What I call the 'nondual perspective' is purely hypothetical, which is why it's in scare quotes. There can be no actual nondual perspectives, which is why "nondual living" doesn't register.

enigma wrote:When you watch a sad movie and sadness arises, you don't call this negative.
Being affected by movies is an indication of the ease with which one gets caught in illusions.
The point is that sadness is not always considered negative.
enigma wrote:When you go bungee jumping and fear and excitement arise and 'calm' is nowhere to be found, how do you know whether to call it positive or negative so that you can know whether you are doing the nondual living thingy?
Haven't been bungee jumping, but excitement has arisen without fear and the associated illusions generating it.
There is a continuum that joins excitement and fear such that the dividing line is entirely arbitrary and subjective. In something like extreme sports, fear is what provides the excitement.

enigma wrote:Have you ever caught yourself clinging to the heartache of lost love? If so, are you clinging because it is positive or negative?
No, love cannot be lost.
Clinging to any ideas or remembrances is illusion in action.
The feeling of conceptual love is almost always lost, and seen to rise and fall. Again, the point is that feelings of loss may be purposely clung to, implying that they have a positive aspect.

enigma wrote:Even in your dualistic living, you're uncertain how to categorize feelings.
Was there some 'edge' experienced when writing this?
If so, what was that caused by?
I don't know what you mean by 'edge'.

User avatar
great2be
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:58 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by great2be » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:00 am

enigma wrote:
great2be wrote: The world is non-dual - that's where we live!
Illusions only create the appearance of duality.
The world of form is dualistic.
That's an untrue statement.
The world is non-dual, it's only illusions that create the appearance of duality.
If you think you see duality in the world, please illustrate.
enigma wrote:
enigma wrote:From the 'nondual perspective' positive and negative feelings are transcended.
great2be wrote:You call it non-dual perspective after I called it non-dual living, and yet you say you don't know what that is - curious!
What I call the 'nondual perspective' is purely hypothetical, which is why it's in scare quotes. There can be no actual nondual perspectives, which is why "nondual living" doesn't register.
I don't speak in hypotheticals.
I have no reason to speak hypothetically.
When the illusions are absent you'll speak from a non-dual perspective.
enigma wrote:
enigma wrote:When you watch a sad movie and sadness arises, you don't call this negative.
great2be wrote:Being affected by movies is an indication of the ease with which one gets caught in illusions.
The point is that sadness is not always considered negative.
Sadness is the result of illusion.
It's generally the wish that things could have been different.
enigma wrote:
enigma wrote:When you go bungee jumping and fear and excitement arise and 'calm' is nowhere to be found, how do you know whether to call it positive or negative so that you can know whether you are doing the nondual living thingy?
great2be wrote:Haven't been bungee jumping, but excitement has arisen without fear and the associated illusions generating it.
There is a continuum that joins excitement and fear such that the dividing line is entirely arbitrary and subjective. In something like extreme sports, fear is what provides the excitement.
Putting the body in challenging situations generates adrenaline, that is not fear.
Fear is projection of the idea of an accident.
The accident isn't real, it's an illusion.
enigma wrote:
enigma wrote:Have you ever caught yourself clinging to the heartache of lost love? If so, are you clinging because it is positive or negative?
great2be wrote:No, love cannot be lost.
Clinging to any ideas or remembrances is illusion in action.
The feeling of conceptual love is almost always lost, and seen to rise and fall. Again, the point is that feelings of loss may be purposely clung to, implying that they have a positive aspect.
I was refering to real love, not conceptual love.
A concept can be made of anything that can be imagined.
Imagination when not recognised as such is a movement into illusion.
enigma wrote:
enigma wrote:Even in your dualistic living, you're uncertain how to categorize feelings.
great2be wrote:Was there some 'edge' experienced when writing this?
If so, what was that caused by?
I don't know what you mean by 'edge'.
It's clear now.
You don't even accept the possibility of the non-dual perspective - whilst that's true it's highly unlikely that you'll understand what I've said.
An imaginary seeker, seeking an imaginary goal.
Realise the nature of imagination and the fallacious effort ends.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing it's tail?

What happens when the dog runs faster?

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by enigma » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:58 am

That's an untrue statement.
The world is non-dual, it's only illusions that create the appearance of duality.
If you think you see duality in the world, please illustrate.
If you think you see nonduality in the world, please illustrate. What is referred to as nonduality is the appearances themselves.

I don't speak in hypotheticals.
I have no reason to speak hypothetically.
When the illusions are absent you'll speak from a non-dual perspective.
So, presently, you can speak from a nondual perspective and I cannot? Who, pray tell, are you talking to and about? There is nobody who can hold a nondual perspective. A perspective is, itself, duality.
Sadness is the result of illusion.
It's generally the wish that things could have been different.
The point is that sadness is not always considered negative.
Putting the body in challenging situations generates adrenaline, that is not fear.
Fear is projection of the idea of an accident.
The accident isn't real, it's an illusion.
If the adrenaline is generated before the bungee jump, it is the result of that projection, and it is a form of fear, and it is enjoyed. Don't dismiss it as a purely physiological response.

I was refering to real love, not conceptual love.
A concept can be made of anything that can be imagined.
Imagination when not recognised as such is a movement into illusion.
"Real Love" is not even a feeling.

User avatar
great2be
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:58 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by great2be » Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:24 pm

enigma wrote:
great2be wrote: That's an untrue statement.
The world is non-dual, it's only illusions that create the appearance of duality.
If you think you see duality in the world, please illustrate.
If you think you see nonduality in the world, please illustrate. What is referred to as nonduality is the appearances themselves.
I don't see duality in the physical world at all.
The only duality I see is when an idea is contradicting reality.
enigma wrote:
great2be wrote: I don't speak in hypotheticals.
I have no reason to speak hypothetically.
When the illusions are absent you'll speak from a non-dual perspective.
So, presently, you can speak from a nondual perspective and I cannot? Who, pray tell, are you talking to and about? There is nobody who can hold a nondual perspective. A perspective is, itself, duality.
Your meaning of duality is not the same as mine.
I only see duality as a contradiction to reality, and this only occurs within ideas.
It is this contradiction that creates all the conflict in life.
enigma wrote:
great2be wrote:Sadness is the result of illusion.
It's generally the wish that things could have been different.
The point is that sadness is not always considered negative.
Whether considered negative or not, sadness is the result of illusion.
enigma wrote:
great2be wrote:Putting the body in challenging situations generates adrenaline, that is not fear.
Fear is projection of the idea of an accident.
The accident isn't real, it's an illusion.
If the adrenaline is generated before the bungee jump, it is the result of that projection, and it is a form of fear, and it is enjoyed. Don't dismiss it as a purely physiological response.
'If' is the operative word.
An imaginary seeker, seeking an imaginary goal.
Realise the nature of imagination and the fallacious effort ends.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing it's tail?

What happens when the dog runs faster?

User avatar
Intel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Location: Near wild heaven

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by Intel » Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:50 pm

The original post implies that any emotion which we deem to be positive arises out of our true nature, but any emotion which we deem to be negative arises through lack of understanding the self. Yet the Self is supposed to encompass all, the negative and positive. Even if one realizes the truth of their being, they will still have to within the body, and the body will function how it is supposed to, whether that be through crying or laughter.

A good example of this is when Jesus ask's God to relieve him from the suffering he would encounter on the cross. He had realized the truth of his being, yet he still experienced anguish. Because although he was a living embodiment of truth, he was still a human.
I would lick your feet, but is that the sickest move?

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by enigma » Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:48 am

The point is that sadness is not always considered negative.
Whether considered negative or not, sadness is the result of illusion.
Whether it is illusion or not, sadness is not always considered negative. Hehe.
The reason I keep saying this is because I'm still talking about your original post:
# Negative and passive

* Boredom
* Despair
* Disappointment
* Hurt
* Sadness

User avatar
gen6
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Understanding Emotions

Post by gen6 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:53 am

enigma wrote:
The point is that sadness is not always considered negative.
Whether considered negative or not, sadness is the result of illusion.
Whether it is illusion or not, sadness is not always considered negative. Hehe.
The reason I keep saying this is because I'm still talking about your original post:
# Negative and passive

* Boredom
* Despair
* Disappointment
* Hurt
* Sadness
Well no matter that sadness is not always conceptually considered negative by someone, it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect your overall being in a negative way.
And here may be we should define sadness ?
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.

Post Reply