Alex's experiment with the grounding of emotions

"All that it left is the totality of 'what is'; the ordinary world seen without the filter of self-referancial thoughts, feelings and emotions. And ordinary reality is suddenly transfigured into something extraordinary and magical, brighter, possessing a life of it own. Some may call this a PCE, I will simple call it *Objective Consciousness* (after Gurdjieff), namely consciousness without a trace of subjectivity."

I repeat here what I just posted in #24

"BUT -- if we start from the philosophy of Actualism, as you've said on another topic, and use that as the platform from which to communicate these things, we end up dealing with emotional responses, not reality."

Chris, could you please clarify this concluding statement? I just want to know what you mean by it. Thanks, Laurel

Laurel, what I'm getting at is like the difference between reporting and advocating. To whit:

If I explain something new to you and I use language that is loaded, is essentially marketing oriented and is not shared terminology that you and I both understand, you may be excited about it or you may be skeptical, or you may not even "get" what I'm talking about, leading to a complete disconnect. If what I'm advocating (selling) is contrary to beliefs you already hold then you may actually react very negatively. (This is the version of things that comes from the philosophy)

If on the other hand I just report on this thing without holding an obvious stake in it or trying to sell you on it, while it's still the same thing mind you, but I use neutral language and I'm not trying market this thing to you in an obvious manner, and especially if I use shared terminology that we both can relate to, then you may tend to evaluate this new thing more on its own merits. (This is the version of things that does not come from philosophy)

Does that help?

Yes it does help! It also explains my powerful aversion to actualism, and anger about it. I'm taking that down an octave or two these days, however, and the discussions on this forum have helped a lot. Thanks.

Exactly, Chris. I fully agree with you, reason I have at least temporarily chosen to call the PCE state "objective consciousness" to avoid using AF terminology for something that is in no way new, but that can apparently be cultivated until it eventually becomes our effortless default (selfless) state. Mahamudra has a similar way of working with negative emotions called "Utilizing Emotions" (in Clarifying the Natural State by Dagpo Tashi Namgyal, page 73).

As to what I call "objectless consciousness", Eihei Dogen talked about it over and over when talking about mountains and rivers as a living expression of Buddha Nature. Speaking about Japanese Zen masters, I now remember that Hakuin advised his awakened students to "shine on" thoughts and emotions to deepen their awakening and reach the next stage ("Kensho the Heart of Zen", transl. Thomas Cleary).

As I understand it, the way to awakening is mainly about tracing the radiance of awareness back to its unborn origin, discarding all phenomena as soon as they are clearly seen as being "not me, not mind, not-self". If awakening is clearly the end of seeking, it is however not the end of the path. We must then return to the market place and shine outside to completely forget ourselves. This profound letting go deepens the awakened natural state, while shining on thoughts and emotions throughout the day accelerates the process of what Adhyashanti calls the embodiment of awakening through the chakras ('The End of Your World' by Adhyashanti).

Well, it's clear to this poor fool that the way to awakening is to peel back the layers of the onion of experience, removing layer after layer after layer of delusion of all types, until the pure, clear light of consciousness without an object, rigpa, non-symbolic consciousness, the clear light, the natural state, whatever you decide to call it, is revealed.

After that, more of the same, and be there to support other human beings to be awake right now, too

So..... yeah.

Thank you Alex for returning to the forum. Your contributions to recent discussions have been profound and inspiring!

Gratitude,
Antero.

Alex wrote: "If awakening is clearly the end of seeking, it is however not the end of the path."

Chris wrote: " The way to awakening is to peel back the layers of the onion of experience, removing layer after layer after layer of delusion of all types, until the pure, clear light of consciousness without an object, rigpa, non-symbolic consciousness, the clear light, the natural state, whatever you decide to call it, is revealed. After that, more of the same, and be there to support other human beings to be awake right now, too "

As for me, I can add but little to what Alex and Chris have already said so well.

Here is that little:

Living fully, in this brightness, look and listen and feel into the Mystery of sheer Being.

Signs and symbols and synchronicities are the "indications of spirit" through which the Mystery is communicated to you moment by moment.

Do not lose heart when darkness comes.

Do not lose perspective when marvels amaze.

Love beyond the limits of little self fear.

Gratitude is the proper response to the grace of it all.

Thank you Chris, Antero and Gozen.

Since Gozen talks about "love beyond the limits of the little self", I would like to mention that the grounding of emotions does not suppress love. On the contrary, when passions and self-referencial emotions cease to arise, what remains is not a stern dryness. On the contrary self-referencial emotions such as pride, envy, jealousy, anxiety or self-pity are precisely what obscures the sweetness of being. Peace, happiness and compassion don't seem to be of the same order.

Would it mean that unconditional love flows beyond the limits of the little conditioned self, as a flavor and modality of Being?

In other words, unconditional love or compassion would be an essential quality of the principle that animates the universe, and what prevents us from feeling it would be the passions and self-referencial negative emotions triggered by our animal survival instinct programed for survival and replication.

"Since Gozen talks about "love beyond the limits of the little self", I would like to mention that the grounding of emotions does not suppress love. On the contrary, when passions and self-referencial emotions cease to arise, what remains is not a stern dryness. On the contrary self-referencial emotions such as pride, envy, jealousy, anxiety or self-pity are precisely what obscures the sweetness of being. Peace, happiness and compassion don't seem to be of the same order. "

Very well put, Alex

In my experience this was certainly true. One of the most welcome changes that came from this practice was spontaneous arising of metta and compassion. I came to realize how self-centred and 'dry' person I had previously been.

"... unconditional love or compassion would be an essential quality of the principle that animates the universe..."

Yep. And this is something that has been reported consistently by many, many very awakened practitioners and teachers for thousands of years.

Thank you for your feedback, Antero and Chris. This is the reason why this AF thing can be misleading, giving the idea that this thing is about eradicating all emotions, including love, compassion and over positive emotions that tend to arise together with the disappearance of the false sense of separation.

In this respect, I feel closer to the approach promoted by Dzogchen and Mahamudra and their idea of *self-liberation*. Tantric Buddhism is based on a form of alchemical transmutation of negative emotions into bliss and emptiness. This is normally done through complex visualization, but these advanced teachings are based on their self-liberation within the natural state. Furthermore, they remind us that target should not be all emotions, but only self-centered emotions taking their source in grasping and aversion. Proceeding in the correct manner (as explained hereafter), their energy is recycled and transmuted into bliss and emptiness.

According to Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, the great 16th century Mahamudra adept: "when you feel an emotion such as any of the five type - attachment, anger, dullness, pride, envy - simply recognize it. Do not attempt to suppress it. Do not indulge in it. Do not mentally try to alter it. Instead, suspend the emotion itself, in a way that is lucidly present and with spacious openness" (Clarifying the Natural State).

This link goes to a description of the practice that helped me with all of this territory. Slide down to the last paragraph if you want to skip the intro

arobuddhism.org/articles/embracing-emotions-as-the-path.html

"Through the practice of meditation, we discover that we can make direct contact with the unconditioned essence of our spectrum of liberated energy. We can embrace our emotions and realise the unending vividness of what we are."

Great stuff! Tanks, Chris.

Great, Chris! This is exactly what I was trying to explain:

"The practice of meditation in the context of embracing emotions as the path gives us another option. This option is one in which we neither repress, express nor dissipate our emotional energy. But one in which we let go of the conceptual scaffolding and wordlessly gaze into the physical sensation of the emotion. This is what we describe as 'staring into the face of arising emotions in order to realise their empty nature'. This is where meditation becomes an essential aspect of our method of discovery. The form of meditation we will discuss here comes from the system known as Trèk-chöd, which means '˜exploding the horizon of conventional reality'. Trèk-chöd involves finding the presence of awareness in the dimension of the sensation of the emotion we are experiencing. Simply speaking, we find the location of the emotion within the body (it may be localised or pervasive). This is where we feel the emotion as a physical sensation. We then allow that sensation to expand and pervade us. We become the emotion. We cease to be observers of our emotions. We stare into the face of the arising emotion with such completeness that all sense of division between '˜experience' and '˜experiencer' dissolve. In this way we open ourselves to glimpses of what we actually are. We start to become transparent to ourselves. Through this staring, the distorted energy of our emotions liberates itself".

...but with an interesting twist, i.e., allowing the physical sensation to expand and pervade us until we become the emotion to dissolve the experience / experiencer duality.

Ken McLeod advocates a very similar practice but calls it "experiencing the emotion fully." I've learned that just opening to the natural dynamics that are occurring, letting go utterly and completely, is my personal "best practice." It's very hard for me to relate, let alone practice, anything that has even a tinge of suppression to it, which is I think why I react in such a negative way to the Actualist language.

BTW, Alex, you have mentioned Adyashanti here and I have to say that I agree with him that post awakening practice seems to lead in the direction of the exploration of our emotional life and a slow, almost inevitable sinking of our attention from the head into the chest and solar plexus region of the body. Finding a practice that supports this is important and it takes some work and experimentation to find a compatibility between what "feels" right and what we believe is right. Only by experiencing some results do we start to get into "Aha!" territory. So when you posted you intro to this topic it was immediately clear to me "where" you were coming from

"
BTW, Alex, you have mentioned Adyashanti here and I have to say that I agree with him that post awakening practice seems to lead in the direction of the exploration of our emotional life and a slow, almost inevitable sinking of our attention from the head into the chest and solar plexus region of the body. Finding a practice that supports this is important and it takes some work and experimentation to find a compatibility between what "feels" right and what we believe is right. Only by experiencing some results do we start to get into "Aha!" territory. So when you posted you intro to this topic it was immediately clear to me "where" you were coming from -- Chris
"

Yes, Chris and Alex: Post-awakening practice has been all about what I have come to call an "emotional education." Not suppressing emotions and not indulging them. Allowing them to be what they are. Which often means experiencing some quite unpleasant stuff: fear, anger, anxiety, pride, etc.

Thank you Alex for posting the Trèk-chöd material. It pointed out that we must feel where the emotion comes from in the body, which may be "localized or pervasive" and then allow it to expand and fill us. Then " We stare into the face of the arising emotion with such completeness that all sense of division between '˜experience' and '˜experiencer' dissolve."

I would only point out, with regard to the quote above, that in "staring into the face of the emotion" so that "all sense of division between '˜experience' and '˜experiencer'" dissolves, we are actually staring into a mirror, which is not something we knew at the start. At the start we stood apart from emotion by trying to control or suppress it. Then we looked at it fearlessly, but still saw it as other. Finally, we recognize that we are gazing into a mirror and seeing the emotional expression of our own face.

I fully agree with you, Chris. After awakening I started to notice a subtle sense of underlying anxiety in the gut that used to be covered by thoughts. Reading Adhyashanti's 'The End of Your World', was helpful to understand what was happening, but he doesn't say much about how we are supposed to deal with it. At least I didn't find his "it that really true?" technique very useful, because this anxiety wasn't fed or generated by a pattern of thoughts, but seemed to be the expression of something more fundamental and in a way energetic. It is only a year later, in May 2011, that I realized that this anxiety was gone and that what remained was just a physical sensation. At this point, what Kenneth had explained me months before started to make sense. At the same time Jeffery M. mentioned, in his Buddhist Geeks second interview, that the gradual disappearance of self-centered emotions was part of a natural process for people moving towards the last stages of his model, leading to the final and complete disappearance of reflexive consciousness or the sense of self. What I understand is that awakening is only the permanent loss of the *self-center* or *ego*. The sense of self becomes abstract and non-local (is not anymore located in the head or chest), but does not disappear. This may be the reason why Adhyashanti seems to make a distinction between *awakening* and *enlightenment*. The latter being reserved for the last shift that is supposed to take place after a rather long process of embodiment. The only detailed description of this ultimate falling away of reflexive consciousness seems to be Bernadette Roberts' book 'What is Self?'

"
I would only point out, with regard to the quote above, that in "staring into the face of the emotion" so that "all sense of division between '˜experience' and '˜experiencer'" dissolves, we are actually staring into a mirror, which is not something we knew at the start. At the start we stood apart from emotion by trying to control or suppress it. Then we looked at it fearlessly, but still saw it as other. Finally, we recognize that we are gazing into a mirror and seeing the emotional expression of our own face.
"


Excellent! Thank you, Gozen.

In the above quote (number 40), the Mahamudra/Dzogchen way of cutting through (Tib. Trekchöd) emotions has been described as: "staring into the face of arising emotions in order to realise their empty nature".

Now what is meant by "realizing their empty nature"? Something is *empty* if it appears as a independent entity on the conventional level, yet is non-existent on the absolute level as it is only a compound phenomenon arising according to causes and conditions. Therefore, realizing the empty nature of emotions means realizing the union of the two truths:

1.) Conventional truth: emotions *exist* as they appear to be solid independent entities, yet;
2.) Absolute truth: emotions *do not exist* as they are nothing but a complex cluster of phenomena happening to a non-existent self.

Practically speaking, this means realizing that if emotions appear distinct independent mental entities, in reality there are non-existent as such, since they are nothing more than a cluster of phenomena:

a.) a mental phenomenon (mental state, thoughts), and;
b.) a physical phenomenon (tension, muscle contraction, faster heart beats, change in breathing, etc. showing evidence of activity of the sympathetic nervous system), combined with;
c.) an invested sense of self (the sense of 'this is how *I* feel').

Focusing on physical sensations throughout the day is a wonderful strategy to disengage from inner dialogue and mental chatter while observing the physical compound of emotions. Having done it continuously for 4 days now, I realize that I have been happy all the time and never got annoyed, sad, bored or angry. Beginner's luck. But the goal at this stage is only to form a habit.

Since no unwholesome emotions seem to be arising this morning, I keep a light focus on the source from which thoughts arise to deepen the thoughtless state. The sense of self is starting to be very difficult to find. From time to time, I have to ask myself "DO I EXIST?"

...Physical sensations, ...sounds, ...visual appearances, ...an inner buzzing sound, ....silence.

No *I*! No *me"! Consciousness is just doing its thing, but the house is empty.

At this stage, asking "DO I EXIST?" seems to work better than "WHO AM I?" to evoke sensations associated to a vague remaining sense of self, probably because the answer to WHO AM I?" is already known.

But "DO I EXIST?" seems to have become a real concern, which shows how powerful this thing can be.

Hey Alex and all,

Great thread - really insightful sharing!

With the question, 'do I exist', I find that I do indeed exist, but as absolute presence; the luminous, knowing-ness, or sentience of reality itself. So there is a looking, to see what is actually there, and a seeing of this empty knowing quality, in which phenomena arise and pass away. Furthermore, there is this recognition that phenomenon (as experience) are inseparable or (non-dual) from this basic sentient fabric of reality that I seem to be.

So it seems that the value of asking the question is in the looking / examining, and the recognition of what we discover as our fundamental nature or condition.

Alex, how to do you see the differences in the aim of the inquiry, to see if 'I' as ego exists, or if there is just existence, that is somehow inseparable from reality itself?

Thanks,

Adam.