Neil Hughes:
tarin greco:
it is in the very nature of the existence of being and of feelings that 'i' feel in conflict with 'my feelings' - both exist due to the separation that produces both.
(. . .)
the separation of 'i' from 'my feelings'; 'i' on one side, 'they' on the other.. hence, the perpetual struggle.
OK, I am still contemplating how "the separation produces both".
a pce is absent of the separation, of 'i', and of 'my feelings', and so going into and coming out of pce again and again reveals this quite clearly.
it is the dualistic illusion that brings both 'i' and 'my feelings' into existence on opposite sides of the (also illusory) separation, (whereas, for contrast, in the non-dualistic illusion there is the sense that the split has ended entirely while leaving either one or both of those two components intact).
Neil Hughes:
tarin greco:
do you understand how what you feel when you are 'trying to feel something dont feel' is itself how you are feeling?
Yes, the effort to change how I'm feeling becomes part of how I'm feeling. In that mode I'm usually striving without skillful means. It only adds conflict.
it sounds like you are only doing it half-willingly (from the half that you call 'i', but not the half that you call 'my feelings').
in order to genuinely have control of how you are feeling, it has to be control from within, not without; 'my feelings' themselves have to be willing to change, which they are only reliably willing to do when they recognise themselves as 'you'.
it's as if there is a master-slave relationship[1] happening in the relationship of 'you' and 'your feelings' (and so you are both master and slave), a relationship wherein both participants/components are working together for their mutual benefit (and it is not a case of one taking advantage of or being insensitive to the other). the slave recognises that he (you) is blind without the master (also you), and the master (you) recognises that he is powerless without the slave (also you). this mutual (self-)recognition avoids resentment on either party and fosters cooperation from both: the slave permits the master to call the shots and carries out the directives willingly; the master counts on the slave to be both willing and able to do what he commands. for example, when the master commands the slave to feel better, the slave recognises that, despite whatever feelings he himself may currently have which favour maintaining his current condition, the master knows better and would not be commanding him otherwise and so the slave cheerfully consents to the order (indeed the master makes his decisions based on information - feelings - coming from the slave... the slave has good reason to cheerfully consent).
it is a circular feedback loop, and is only meaningful when the slave (you) is willing to totally submit and the master (you) is willing to totally assume responsibility. they (you) play their parts hand-in-hand, in the spirit of true friendship. it is the mutual (self-)recognition between the two (the recognition of a shared identity) that makes this possible.
Neil Hughes:
tarin greco:
now, using the methodology you describe, when you see how silly it is to feel bad (and you stop feeling bad), what then? what do you then do with all that freed-up affective energy (that was previously going into feeling bad) which is now available?
The affective energy becomes quite subtle, like the "feeling tones" that you have been discussing with another DhO member (whose name escapes me, sorry). The inner world is made relatively harmless, painless and non-intrusive by being objectified, and the outer world is vivified by having fewer feelings of separation. In that mode it comes naturally to marvel at everything, including consciousness itself.
here is a suggestion then - when you are in currently in that state you describe, ask yourself these questions: do you see how the inner world, being now only
relatively harmless, painless, and non-intrusive, is still
relatively harmful, painful, and intrusive? do you see how the outer world, while vivified by having fewer feelings of separation, is still marked by those feelings which are, as you point out, of separation? and if so, do you see how silly it is to be harmful, painful, and intrusive ... and to have any feelings of separation at all?
by the way, the thread you are referring to is
'contributions to the discussion about emotions' and my correspondent whose name escaped you was
Vajracchedika Ian Vajra.
tarin
[1] for some other interesting (and possibly relevant) ways the term master/slave (in relationship) has been used:
Master/slave is a model of communication where one device or process has unidirectional control over one or more other devices.
In some systems a master is elected from a group of eligible devices, with the other devices acting in the role of slaves. ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology))
As the slave creates more and more products with greater and greater sophistication through his own creativity,
he begins to see himself reflected in the products he created, he realizes that the world around him was created by his own hands, thus the slave is no longer alienated from his own labour and achieves self-consciousness.
while the master on the other hand has become wholly dependent on the products created by his slave; thus the master is enslaved by the labour of his slave. The realization of this contradiction allows the slave to once again struggle against his master. The contradiction is resolved when the difference between slave and the master is dissolved and
both recognize that they are interdependent[2]. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-Slave)
[2] except that i am ultimately encouraging you to go beyond recognising that they are interdependent, and to recognising that the entire phenomenon is illusory.