Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

Wonderful exerpt, Ian!

Direct mode or the PCE isn't repression. I can see why it looks that way, but it's not. To put it in somatic experiencing terms, by virtue of direct attention to the body as a whole in the present moment, the somatic charge gets continuously grounded. Emotions that don't arise can't be repressed. If you do this long enough, the sense of a separate self drops as it has nothing to be protected from. No aversion or clinging. Then, no suffering.

"I think your main objection is that emotions actually convey useful information, is that right?" -- Bruno

That's one my my objections. I have several. If you review my comments you will get the rest. And I assert that "convey useful information" should be construed to mean both to the subject and to other human beings the subject communicates with.

You are saying emotional charge no longer arises, but I am not convinced that this is a desirable thing. There is information in that somatic charge. I see this Direct Mode thing as being one of two ways of dealing with this. Either you are clearing the wires so that the information normally delivered by the somatic charge is delivered without that charge, and the body/mind/emotion system is working more efficiently, or that charge is being blocked and the information is no longer reaching consciousness.

It's comparable to having your hand on a hot stove. Either you're paying so much attention that your hand moves off the stove immediately, almost on its own, and you don't get burned.

Or, you're grounding the somatic charge that normally travels up your arm to your brain to get you to move your arm, and you don't realize that your hand is burning (metaphorically speaking, I don't mean this literally). Which, if this is the case, could be why it hurts so much more when you let the somatic charge arise. It's getting louder because you're not paying attention to it.

I am debating whether to explain or not what has and is continuing to happen and to explain why it is such a good idea and why it is not really suppression but that it's one more step towards paying attention to reality as it is. And seeing what is and isn't illusory. But after a talk with Kenneth recently, I think this practice be kept for those who really want to do it post-4th path. Best not to lose time and mental power considering this as a practice until post-4th path. I think I'll let Kenneth, this being his site, to decide on what to explain and not explain. And if 4th pathers want info on what I am doing, I'd prefer to take it off onto PM's. I just think what I would say, would be taken out of context and not understood. Talk of getting rid of emotions is just going to cause more of those anti-A/F-like reactions. And that just causes unneccesary worry. I think people should get back to getting a path , or cultivating what they wish to cultivate.

If Kenneth says it's ok to explain this stuff. i will.

"Emotions that don't arise can't be repressed. If you do this long enough, the sense of a separate self drops as it has nothing to be protected from. No aversion or clinging. Then, no suffering." ~Owen

Not so fast. Emotional energies are natural to the human experience. Not allowing them to arise is supression.

I guess what it comes down to is a difference in opinion with regard to what the actual problem is. My personal take on it is that emotional energies are good. What screws the up are the ways in which we react to them, usually by force of habit.

It's like shining light through a window. If the window is dirty, or stained, or whatever, the light may project a grousome image on the wall or floor or whatever else. Clear away the dirt, and the nasty image no longer appears. Not a great analogy, but close enough.

When we stop reacting to emotional energies in unhealthy ways, they are no longer a problem. They don't manifest in the same ways anymore. Shinzen Young talks about anger pulsing through his body and giving him a massage. That's not the usual experience of anger.

I'd rather work with my emotions, and express them without unhealthy blockages, then to put my efforts into keeping them at bay.

~Jackson

"I think your main objection is that emotions actually convey useful information, is that right? What information exactly do they convey, which you couldn't pick up some other way?" -- Bruno

Bruno, if I was being attacked by a hungry tiger I guess I could do one of two things: write note to everyone around telling them I was scared.... or just be scared and run like hell. I can envision thousands and thousands of scenarios that don't fit what you're saying and, at least to my way of thinking, show the value of emotions, both positive and negative. So honestly, I'm kind of flummoxed by what you seem to be saying. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to have decided is that emotion is unnecessary and therefore useless and something be gotten rid of. I disagree with both ends of that assertion.

"Talk of getting rid of emotions is just going to cause more of those anti-A/F-like reactions. " -- Nick

We all seem to be holding a very reasonable, civil discussion. I see no one getting angry, or even upset, or bringing up the philosophy of Actual Freedom. At all. Maybe your expectation is otherwise, Nick, but the reality seems quite interesting and informative for all who are participating. And it seems to me EVERYONE participating, regardless of attainment, is contributing intelligent, cogent information.

So why cut that off now?

Heh, sorry for the dictionary thing everyone

Chris, I actually haven't decided, it is just that all the counter-examples I or anyone so far have come up with aren't really enough to justify suffering (and I do suffer when I feel afraid, or angry, or sad). That's why I posed it as a question, I wasn't trying to sound Ostentatious (I don't care to impress anyone with this discussion, I'm actually very interested in the topic, that's all).

I am genuinely interested in having answers to those questions (of why are emotions worthwhile having), from as many people as I can find willing to provide. Emotion distorts perception by overlaying a color, or a mood. Given that unfiltered perception is so delightful (the glimpses I've had of a PCE have given me direct experience of this), I became genuinely interested in finding reasons to keep or not to keep emotions. Before seeing how direct perception can be so great, I was genuinely horrified at the idea of loosing those filters. Now I am hard-pressed to find a reason to keep them.

Whatever turns out to be my conclusion is likely the way I am going to act, viz., my own decision to pursue AF is actually being made at this point in my life. And so my question really couldn't be more sincere, and I think that the discussion is worthwhile in itself.

The example you give is fear. While I see that fear has played a role in a world when civilization wasn't so advanced, nowadays the tiger example falls a bit short of convincing me, even when taken metaphorically. I don't see why the fear-ridden, stressful, flight-or-fight response is in any way useful in the modern day. On the other hand, I have had several panic attacks for various silly reasons (such as hipocondria), and I would rather not have them again for any reason.

Anyone interested in continuing this discussion? (click "find valuable" if yes)

"Bruno, I think we all know how to use a dictionary. Posting defintions in every comment comes off as, well... kind of ostentatious. Just saying.

(1) Ostentatious: intended to attract notice and impress others.

"

Actually, my instinct was to post a dictionary definition as well, because I think these terms ought to be seen and compared to what is being called 'Suppression'. Bruno beat me to it.

Anyway, I don't think Bruno posted it to attract notice or impress others, at least I personally find it useful to see it defined and compared to what we are talking about, though I see how that can be annoying.

I'm gonna throw my partially-untested theory and say that I won't be that surprised to see more people who are taking the 'Permanent no suffering isn't desirable', change their view around, because Kenneth and Daniel were both originally thinking that if someone is pursuing this, they must not be 'done', because someone who is 'done' (free in heaven, free in hell), wouldn't suffer because of negative emotions.
And yet, we have seen Kenneth and Daniel, being the teachers or mentors of most if not all yogis on these communities (Dho and Kfdh) (I guess 'elders' would be an appropriate term), pursue this practice and decided to put a permanent end to suffering.

I believe trust is an important part of the spiritual path, and although it can turn ugly (blind adherence), I think that as a supporting power (one of the spiritual faculties in the buddhist tradition i believe - Saddha) it is very helpful, and so this is what makes me think this practice is a good idea (after 4th path). Why? Partly, and mostly, because I believe Kenneth when he says so, having earned my trust with his guidance so far.

Obviously, I acknowledge that this is just my own thoughts and you guys have totally different ones on this issue. I enjoy reading them .

Hi, Bruno, here are some examples of what I believe to be valuable emotions:

I love my wife and children. I want to have that feeling and I want them to know I have that that feeling.

There are times when my children need discipline. At some of those times I need to be stern, maybe even show some anger to make a point. I want that feeling and I want them to see that I have that feeling.

I engage with projects at work and I get excited about them. I want to feel that excitement as motivating emotion and I want my co-workers to see that I feel that emotion so that they may be likewise motivated.

My daughter was recently very, very ill, such that I had to call 911. I was very, very concerned and I wanted to feel that emotion and I wanted my daughter to see that I was concerned. It seemed to help put her at ease.

How many more examples should I post?

Bruno, one of the best series of talks I've heard on the value of emotions came from Robert Solomon. It's called "Passions: Philosophy and the Intelligence of Emotions" available from TTC here: www.teach12.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4123

(and also available elsewhere for cheaper, I imagine, with the proper internet search tools)

It's a lot of stuff to digest, but it's all worth considering, and he's an entertaining speaker to boot. From the page linked to above:

"Emotions have intelligence and provide personal strategies that are vitally important to our everyday lives of perceiving, evaluating, appraising, understanding, and acting in the world.

This idea runs counter to the widespread view that draws a sharp distinction between the emotional and the rational and views the emotions as inferior, disruptive, primitive, and even bestial forces. For Professor Solomon, many emotions are distinctively human and they are far more complicated than mere "feelings." They are rational judgments'”sophisticated strategies for survival."

Emotions are tools, and like any tools, they can be misused if not properly understood. The response should never be to simply get rid of the tool, but rather, to learn to use it properly.

The works of Daniel Goleman are likewise good to review in regard to emotional intelligence, which is a concept close to what Ian just posted.

yadidb, Daniel and Kenneth are but two teachers among many. Their views are the exception, not the rule. That's not meant to be a put-down to either of them. I have great respect for those on the fringe. Still, their interest in a PCE/DM-style of practice is probably not indicative of the direction which other intermediate to advanced practicioners will aim their practice the future - whether near or distant.

I can't help but feel that something just isn't right about all of this. After all of my life experiences, as well as training in both religious studies and psychology, my intuition informs me not to support this style of practice. No one is required to trust my intuition but me. It's just that the more I hear about it, the more red flags arise. Is there something about this practice that blinds the participants from seeing what's happening? How they're presenting? It's all very curious. I wish that everyone would just snap out of it and go back to being human beings.

"Tell us how you REALLY feel, Jackson!"

Hey Jackson,
I agree that their views are some amongst many. What I am trying to say is that since I found their advice valuable in the past, I believe it is still so, for me.

"I wish that everyone would just snap out of it and go back to being human beings." -Jackson
I have a strong feeling that if you meet someone who is in a PCE in person, it won't seem so other-wordly or non-human as it seems online.

Thanks Chris,

[1] And what is it about loving them that is important? Is it the somatic charge that runs through your body, or is it some of the things you do "for love"? Do you agree that not everything that is done "for love" is good? (Envy comes to mind) Do you think that the things that you do "for love" and which are worthwhile to do, are worthwhile doing for reasons other than "you having the sensation of love"? Doesn't love sometimes blind you to do foolish things, that actually work in detriment of those you love? Doesn't it sometimes blind you in a way that you can't see who the person in front of you really is, or in a way that you see things that aren't there? (thus causing one to, basically, relate to a figment of one's imagination, rather than the actual person)

[2] I assume that you think your children need discipline when they don't act as you would like them to act. How does being stern or showing anger make any point whatsoever? Doesn't it show that it is OK to be stern or angry when others don't do what you want them to do? I personally have very bad memories of moments when my father thought I needed discipline and became angry at me.

[3] Isn't it strange that you need emotion to be motivated? What could cause you to be demotivated in the first place, if you had no emotion? Isn't this an instance of needing an emotion to combat another one?

(contd.)

[4] Your anxiety didn't help her get any better at all, you making sure she got medical attention did (I mean, I hope your daughter got better ). Most children won't become more at ease with their parents' distress, quite the contrary. Maybe she got at ease because she saw you were capably dealing with it (calling 911, etc), rather than because of you getting distressed? (As a scenario suppose you really freaked out, rather than just being distressed, do you think that would have put here "more at ease"? "Dad is freaking out real bad, it's because he cares"?)

Chris are you seeing the kind of argumentation that can be built around this subject? Do you see that, at least argumentatively, it holds its ground?

I think that it is a genuinely possible perspective, and that's why I am inclined to give the PCE/DM a chance when that makes sense for me (and it already does so occasionally). I would like to conceptually investigate beforehand, however, if I am missing something really important!

"
I love my wife and children. I want to have that feeling and I want them to know I have that that feeling.

There are times when my children need discipline. At some of those times I need to be stern, maybe even show some anger to make a point. I want that feeling and I want them to see that I have that feeling.

I engage with projects at work and I get excited about them. I want to feel that excitement as motivating emotion and I want my co-workers to see that I feel that emotion so that they may be likewise motivated.

My daughter was recently very, very ill, such that I had to call 911. I was very, very concerned and I wanted to feel that emotion and I wanted my daughter to see that I was concerned. It seemed to help put her at ease."

I was thinking along these same lines, Chris. In fact, I was writing the following off-line when you posted yours:
What is love?

Is love a form of attachment that must be avoided?

Human beings clearly want to love and be loved. Just as clearly, we can experience the pain of separation from a lover or, even worse, being rejected by one who no longer loves us.

I bring up love in this discussion of the "direct mode" of practice because I do not see these as compatible over the long term. Most of us who are not monastics are either in an intimate relationship with a spouse or lover, or else would like to be. Those of us who have children love them deeply in a way that is even stronger than our love for a spouse.

Practicing "direct mode" while in an intimate, loving relationship may have salutary effects, at least for awhile. However, I wonder what the effects may be over the longer term. The experiment that is now being run is still in its early weeks and months. The problems that arise in relationships, which must be dealt with in a loving way, can take longer than that to manifest.

"I can't help but feel that something just isn't right about all of this. After all of my life experiences, as well as training in both religious studies and psychology, my intuition informs me not to support this style of practice. No one is required to trust my intuition but me. It's just that the more I hear about it, the more red flags arise. Is there something about this practice that blinds the participants from seeing what's happening? How they're presenting? It's all very curious. I wish that everyone would just snap out of it and go back to being human beings."

Jackson thanks for writing that. I think I know what you mean when you write "Is there something about this practice that blinds the participants from seeing [...] how they are presenting?"

I used to have a similar intuition when reading no-emotion argumentation. But after having PCE-like experiences, the following happened: I investigated what this intuition was, phenomenologically. And I concluded that it was a feeling-based appreciation of the written words. Basically, either the content of what was being written, or the way it was being written, or both, caused faint feelings of discomfort and dread, and it was based on these feelings that I formed my intuition. After putting that aside for a while, that intuition no longer arises (I'm not suppressing it either ).

And it strikes me now, reading my previous post, that I would have had this same impression, were I to read my own words just a few months ago. So I think I do see how what I am writing might present itself to others. Is your intuition, these red flags which you are sensing, if you were to describe the event phenomenologically, anything like what I have just described?

"Is your intuition, these red flags which you are sensing, if you were to describe the event phenomenologically, anything like what I have just described?" ~Bruno

More than anything, it is a feeling of incongruency. The very premise of the practice and the results I've witnessed run counter to what I value and what I hold to be true. Phenomenologically, it is a "gut" feeling. It's a similar intuition that to that which arises when I hear people speak against inter-racial marriage, or homosexuality, or co-habitation before marriage. When someone views something as "wrong" (in this case, certain emotions), and it runs counter to what I hold to be true, this intuition arises. It is that part of me which knows that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with being human, emotions and all.

I view the spiritual path as one that opens us up to a wider, more accepting, more inclusive existence. I think that suffering is largely due to our inability to grow and develop, whether intentional or unintentional. We suffer because we get "stuck". We encounter "blocks". So, a step in the direction away from emotional acceptance and maturity is out of the question for me. If you turn around every time you come to a roadblock, you won't ever get very far. For me, the more accepting I am of my emotions, the less I suffer. The more I can work through the roadblocks, the less that emotions are a problem.

We need to grow up. That's our job. I don't see how suppressing* emotions from arising can possibility lead to growth. It will either lead to regression or stagnation. I don't see how it could be any other way.

*Yes, I keep using the word "suppressing" and "suppression." Putting a lid on something doesn't make it go away. Even if you don't see them or sense them, emotional energies lay in waiting.

~Jackson

EDIT: Sp.

Bruno --

"Most children won't become more at ease with their parents' distress, quite the contrary"

I didn't say distress. I said concern. You might call it compassion. It's an emotion.

In re love -- your comments, while probably valid in the situations you describe, miss my point entirely. I like the feeling of love and I like the feeling that I get when my loved ones know I love them. You can make that out to be silly, disingenuous, or whatever suits your fancy but none of that is what I actually said. Love is really is a very simple emotion that is true between people.

"Isn't it strange that you need emotion to be motivated?"

Again, I didn't say I need an emption to be motivated. I said I had the emotion, and having it can use it in a positive manner.

"Chris are you seeing the kind of argumentation that can be built around this subject? Do you see that, at least argumentatively, it holds its ground?"

Well... no. You didn't really address my examples at all. You twisted them to suit your point. You even substituted your words for mine.

"In order to see tanha at its root, you must make the mind and body transparent in real time. The best way I know to do that is to note the four foundations of mindfulness until the level of 4th Path."

It is this "transparency" that makes DM possible. Its not supression, not "letting be". That's why grounding seems more accurate.

To me DM is something like "phenomena seing/being/liberating itself" BECAUSE one reaches a discovery: disembedding has always been unwilled. One can hear about this, but without actually discovering it, one might fall back into delusion. Not only that: inertia of delusion can trick one's mind.

How can one be sure about this? How can one actually know that one is "transparency" and not be fooled by a conceptual transparency? That's the tricky part.

"I assume that you think your children need discipline when they don't act as you would like them to act. How does being stern or showing anger make any point whatsoever? Doesn't it show that it is OK to be stern or angry when others don't do what you want them to do? I personally have very bad memories of moments when my father thought I needed discipline and became angry at me." -- Bruno

I'm replying to this comment separately. Why? Because Bruno's assumption is off base. My comment, maybe not as well expressed as it could have been, wasn't about cases where other people just don't behave they way we think they should. This is not about acting out, or being rude, or crying in public, or being selfish to friends on a playground. It's about the occasional need, as parents, to intervene is the lives of our children, sometimes in situations that are, quite literally, life and death. I've had to deal with those kinds of situations and I would offer that they can be as charged as any situation you might find yourself in. Sometimes it is very appropriate, even *wise,* to let other people know the depth of our feelings. Not in a violent way, of course. But in a way that communicates urgency and criticality, and that lets another human being know that they're in danger.

Bruno, I really want to be able to discuss this stuff with you because we can both learn something. Can we please not assume the smallest about each other? Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm referring here to things like replacing my word "concern" with your word "distress." Or assuming meaning in my comments that is not indicated in the words I actually use. I think you were trying to make a point and I get that, but in the process I think you crossed a line.

Thanks.

By the way, I think we should congratulate ourselves because this may just be the longest running entirely civil and reasonable discussion about this topic. Ever. In the history of the subject matter. Right here. On KFDh. It's enjoyable and informative and pleasant and I thank you all for that.

That may be about to change. Hehe!