Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss

"1. NICK- Do you think Kenneth has really had authentic PCE's? What do you think Kenneth needs to know, if he has already experienced the PCE and says "meh"? You told me this carrot "AF" is THE carrot to eat. So what would you say to convey the taste of that carrot to Kenneth?

2. KENNETH- You say "But just as we have conditioned the mind to be free, we can condition it to be free while feeling compassion." I don't think Nick wants to do this. And I don't know that IF he wanted to do it, that he COULD do it. Most AF people consider AF irreversible and say that they can't go back... Do you that think they can go back to feeling?
(cont)"

Hi Gary,

1. I can't speak for Kenneth.

2. I do not need to 'feel an urge' to help others. It just makes sense to do so.

Nick

"Do you think that he will miss part of his potential as a human being by stopping at actual freedom?

"

May I ask where I have conveyed the idea that I have 'stopped'? I don't think I have. If that is the notion adhered to by others, then it is their own mental projections they are convinced of. If it helps, please see my ongoing practice journal at the HP for to get an idea of the ongoing saga that is this mind/body organism's potential.

" Have I caused you concern Gary? If so where in my writings have I done so, so we can adress it? Have I upset anyone else beside Kenneth with my straighfrowardness? If I haven't then the backstory would clear that up."

from post 24 of the thread "Ongoing Confusion", you said this to Adam:

"So what is your problem?"

This question always comes across as rude, and I think that explains why Adam took your comments personally. It surprises me that no one pointed this out to you when you asked for specific feedback.

The rest of my concern comes from the stalled dialogue with Kenneth, which you have already addressed.

"from post 24 of the thread "Ongoing Confusion", you said this to Adam:

"So what is your problem?"

This question always comes across as rude, and I think that explains why Adam took your comments personally. It surprises me that no one pointed this out to you when you asked for specific feedback.

The rest of my concern comes from the stalled dialogue with Kenneth, which you have already addressed."

But I was confused and clueless as to his problem. Perhaps I should have said "I am unsure what your problem is and would appreciate knowing exactly what it is."

Thanks for that Gary. I see it can be taken as quite direct. i should have cushioned it as an indirect question. Politeness escaped me for a moment. Oh, was the Buddha ever confronting and seemingly 'rude' in any of his exchanges in the suttas? I recall him calling many people fools to their faces. He didn't always couch his communication style with delightful analogies, polite pleasantries and indirect questions.

"

Thanks for that Gary. I see it can be taken as quite direct. i should have cushioned it as an indirect question. Politeness escaped me for a moment. Oh, was the Buddha ever confronting an seemingly 'rude' in any of his exchanges in the suttas? I recall him calling many people fools, foolish man etc etc. He didn't always couch his communication style with delightful analogies. "

Hey, don't get me wrong, I don't like too much political correctness and extreme politeness myself. I have a long history of rude email comments.
But if you don't see it yourself, by reviewing your own post (assuming that you did) then that gives support to Kenneth's point, and that concerns me.
I can identify with Adam through empathy. "How would I feel if Nick said that to me?". So I can "get it" that way. Through imagination and feeling. You have to rely on something other than imagination or empathy- through deduction, reasoning etc. Can these faculties make up for the loss of empathy? I don't know. I just ask the question.
You have always acted friendly and polite toward me, so I don't have a problem with your communications with me. Except that you may have missed the intention of a few of my points. But I have to leave the keyboard.

"Oh, was the Buddha ever confronting and seemingly 'rude' in any of his exchanges in the suttas? I recall him calling many people fools, foolish man etc. He didn't always couch his communication style with delightful analogies and polite pleasantries."


Interesting comparison, but it makes me say "Whoa! Let's slow down for a second."

Nick, at your level of practice and the level of attainment you claim I would expect, really expect, a lot more patience, wisdom, and grace. What I'm getting from your comments is impatience, anger, possibly resentment and some ego. Affective feelings with a center behind them, a "me." I know this will be perceived as being rude but I think you need to see what the rest of us see when reading your comments of late.

And, I suspect you might be just a tad premature in comparing yourself to the Buddha.

I just wanted to throw a few things out there for ponder.

The main one is simply about the usefulness (or perhaps skillfulness) of discussions like this in this context. In part because there are hints that some of the discussion is rooted in past disagreements or personal spats which I am not aware of (and honestly don't care to be told), but contributes to issues with point two:

One of the deep fears many dharma students face during practice - at various stages - is fear of losing themselves, losing the things they consider to be valuable and good, becoming a sort of feelingless zombie. I have heard numerous students in various contexts voice this concern, and have had it myself. It is a normal fear that arises during parts of ones practice. So to have a very direct and rather blunt discussion that suggests that emotions and feelings not only drop away but do so to a great extreme is naturally going to be quite disturbing to some readers. It was interesting to be reading Adyashanti's book "The End of Your World" yesterday, which discusses some of these same things but somehow manages to be very reassuring and encouraging rather than sounding dire and harsh. It's the difference between saying "the amazing thing is compassion still naturally arises even when one feels no sense of agency or self!" versus "if you think you are compassionate but are having any feelings, you are doing it rong and it's not good enough". I have no doubt that some people reach a point in their practice where most or all of their sense of self falls away. I just think it could be skillful to consider the context and audience and speak about it with some care. Each of us is at a different level of practice, and *that's okay*. We each have a unique path that unfolds in its own time. It's not a #fail if one person is not at the same stage as another. Thoughts?

I regard to Adyashanti's book -- yes, there is a depth and breadth in that book that is not only reassuring but inspiring.

"
"Oh, was the Buddha ever confronting and seemingly 'rude' in any of his exchanges in the suttas? I recall him calling many people fools, foolish man etc. He didn't always couch his communication style with delightful analogies and polite pleasantries."


Interesting comparison, but it makes me say "Whoa! Let's slow down for a second."

Nick, at your level of practice and the level of attainment you claim I would expect, really expect, a lot more patience, wisdom, and grace. What I'm getting from your comments is impatience, anger, possibly resentment and some ego. Affective feelings with a center behind them, a "me." I know this will be perceived as being rude but I think you need to see what the rest of us see when reading your comments of late.

And, I suspect you might be just a tad premature in comparing yourself to the Buddha.

"

When I say a phrase in my head I ask myself if it is ok and will be understood on the other end. Later on, others say it seems to express anger and agitation. I'm trying to figure out how to best convey language without that. I seem to go from one end of sounding like robot to the other end of seemingly conveying agitation. They are just thoughts of what I think. Trying to find a balance between the robot and the wrongly assumed agitation is a current project.

On reading my own words, I don't see where I compare myself to being like the Buddha but pointed to the idea that even a Buddha may not use 'pleasantries'. Did it convey something else for you, Chris?

"1. Interesting comparison, but it makes me say "Whoa! Let's slow down for a second."

2. Nick, at your level of practice and the level of attainment you claim I would expect, really expect, a lot more patience, wisdom, and grace.

3. What I'm getting from your comments is impatience, anger, possibly resentment and some ego. Affective feelings with a center behind them, a "me." I know this will be perceived as being rude but I think you need to see what the rest of us see when reading your comments of late.

3. And, I suspect you might be just a tad premature in comparing yourself to the Buddha.

"

The following is just me being straightforward with how i think.

1. Here I do think you have overread what I said and projected soemthing else. I should have been clearer.

2. Can you point to where I have tripped up concerning 'patience', 'wisdom' and 'grace', so that I may address them personally as well as here? What are those terms to you?

3. What you are getting is indicative of how you read into things. Do you represent the rest of 'us'? Can anyone else comment on how they perceive me and my posts?

Honestly interested in learning how to refine my writing style to be less what seems to be perceived by Chris. I don't have any fear nor worry come up as to what people think of me. And this really does lead to not trying to placate and stroke people's feelings so that they like me. I guess I lack the skillful means to make things 'edible'. However, I do wish the end of suffering to those who seek it and if my writing style can be tweaked to aid in that, then by all means critique it for me so that I may learn from it.

3. I didn't mean to imply that I am like Buddha.

""if you think you are compassionate but are having any feelings, you are doing it rong and it's not good enough".\"

Hi giragirasol,

Have I conveyed this in any way? If so, where did I write it so as to correct it. I don't think i have said that it is wrong as you seem to imply indirectly.

" You have to rely on something other than imagination or empathy- through deduction, reasoning etc. Can these faculties make up for the loss of empathy? I don't know. "

I understand what a polite sounding sentence is and isn't. I recognised that what I wrote to Adam came off as not polite. When it was said in my head, it wasn't said with any impolite tone. It was actually quite calm and polite sounding. That form of question can be said in a polite way when spoken. When written I recognize I just forgot how people project and read onto things. I'm learning that. Even people with feelings make that mistake.

Perhaps a skype convo face to face would clear this up. Writing styles differ, cultural ways of conveying politeness differ, forgetfulness of what is a polite means of conveying info can occur. So far, I have only been shown one place where I seemed to lack empathy towards that person due to how I wrote. Can someone make a list of examples of the other things I've written that have 'lacked empathy'. If i didn't care for those within my vicinity, physical and digital, why would I bother continuing on talking about it. There is just something that makes sense wanting others to end suffering.

If you don't want to end suffering and/or do not gel with my communication style, i guess it's best not to read anything I write. In fact, thinking about it now, I have made a mistake posting here. I allowed other conditions to think it was ok. I was wrong. Best I retreat from KFD. I apologize to those who did not gain anything from my posts.

If anyone wishes in future to ask any questions to Clayton, Owen or myself, please feel free to start up a thread or journal on the HP forum. That should have been where I posted this thread.

Edit: I will check this thread though for any tips on where I went wrong in my style of communication as I am seriously interested in where I went wrong.

"In fact, thinking about it now, I have made a mistake posting here. I allowed other conditions to think it was ok. I was wrong. Best I retreat from KFD. I apologize to those who did not gain anything from my posts.

"

I disagree that you should retreat from KFD. I personally gain a great deal from not only reading your posts, but also from watching the reactions that arise to them.

I've learned the hard way that the vast majority of time, the reaction I have to another has way more to do with me that with the other. Additionally, the social dynamic often says something interesting about the implied assumptions (and all the dharma implications of that) of all parties involved.

Perhaps, as an example in the practice of compassion, we could all take a look at the fact that while concentration and insight practices can be "done", the training in morality or how-shall-I-live is effectively endless.

This whole thing seems to be getting into the territory of meditation as a spectator sport, just a form of entertainment. "Lets create some conflict between Nik and Kenneth and watch the fireworks".

As far as communication styles go, I encourage you all to read "Lying". Communication, as a two-player game, is enormously subtle and complicated and I think this short eBook does a great job of bringing some lucidity to one important aspect of how we communicate.

www.amazon.com/Lying-Kindle-Single-ebook...id=1317999484&sr=8-1

I for one find it immature that people insist on projecting simple differences of opinion (i.e. models of experiential reality) into painful conflict.

I guarantee that all of the advanced yogis on here have almost incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing. We're niggling with very small percentages here when we could be focusing our efforts on helping those starting at zero get the first 80% of the prize.

"In fact, thinking about it now, I have made a mistake posting here. I allowed other conditions to think it was ok. I was wrong. Best I retreat from KFD. I apologize to those who did not gain anything from my posts."

This morning, while reviewing this thread I thought: I am grateful for all the things I'm learning through you, kenneth, and the rest of the people posting here, grateful for the opportunity to discuss openly these topics. In my country, NO buddhist talks about Dharma like all of you do. I agree with andymr, the responses teach me many things, the mistakes we make teach me many things.

I understand that perhaps this thread, or the Ongoing confusion thread might be used as space to get into conflict. However, If tibetans argue verbally over and over as part of their training, as this video shows: , I wonder, can we have discussions/debates agreeing or disagreeing respectfully? I think it is possible. Perhaps we should set some debate rules or standards. What do you guys think?

"I guarantee that all of the advanced yogis on here have almost incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing. We're niggling with very small percentages here when we could be focusing our efforts on helping those start at zero get the first 80% of the prize."

True.

It's apparent to me that Nick can benefit a lot of yogi's reading these forums, by continuing with these discussions. Nick I hope you stay and continue the discussion, you began this thread after all. I and many others can learn from the discourse here.

What I don't want to see and don't think this should degenerate into, is people picking apart Nick's language or pointing out lacking of politeness or empathy, I don't see why that kind of stuff is necessary. I think we can all discuss the practice(s) and models ( and our opinions ) themselves without resorting to criticising one another.

I think we're all mature enough here that we don't need people to coddle us or baby us with politeness, but I think everyone here deserves respect. I also think that sometimes a confrontational style can be effective depending on the circumstances. Anyhow I look forward to continued discussion.

Justin

Thanks Nick for bringing up this topic, it is relevant to me at the moment. So far everything you have said sounds familiar from my experience at this point of my practice. For me helping happens much more often than before and I have no idea where the motivation is coming from. It is self evident and there is no feeling to it. There is an instant recognition that my help is needed and then action follows, almost like I have no choice in the matter.

As for empathy, I would say I am more empathic than before even though I have not felt mind states or emotions for several weeks. I just seem to know how other people are feeling and reacting appropriately.

I have not done any af practices and it was mainly noting practice that led me to this stage. Still there seems to be similarities to what you are reporting.

"This morning, while reviewing this thread I thought: I am grateful for all the things I'm learning through you, kenneth, and the rest of the people posting here, grateful for the opportunity to discuss openly these topics. In my country, NO buddhist talks about Dharma like all of you do. I agree with andymr, the responses teach me many things, the mistakes we make teach me many things. "

me too!

metta!

Justin

Personally, I really like talking about this stuff. I like getting into it and picking apart all the details. Sometimes it winds me up. When I get too wound up I think: OK, something is wrong. This is 'me', something to look at. Then I meditate on that, see what is at stake, hopefully drop it, then continue.

Conflict can be useful. It means we don't all agree. That means that one side or the other or both have something to learn, either about reality, or about the presentation of reality, or both.

Conflict is a good practice pointer. Is it striking some chords? Without presupposing one side or the other is correct, whatever is struck, is 'me', conflict, something to look at. Huge practice pointers just by having your buttons pressed. First and second noble truths.

That being said, conflict is stress, and too much can drive people off. I suggest finding a way to strike some balance.

Orasis: "I guarantee that all of the advanced yogis on here have almost incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing."

Then why so much conflict? =P.

I have found this discussion interesting and valuable, and can see no reason for drama.

"Orasis: "I guarantee that all of the advanced yogis on here have almost incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing."

Then why so much conflict? =P."

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but for others I think this is an important point. Many will project that any conflict is very "un-enlightened". I find this an utterly false notion.

It is absolutely impossible for a physical body, a vessel for conversation, to be omniscient.

As we all know from our noting practice, we are only experiencing the tiniest fraction of reality at any given moment. These experiences of reality create mental models. When these mental models are in communication with each other, there is *guaranteed* to be differences, either subtle or gross in how these models are constructed.

To move the perception of reality closer to reality, these metal models must interact with each other, debate each other, and enrich each other - moving each closer to the Truth.

"When I say a phrase in my head I ask myself if it is ok and will be understood on the other end. Later on, others say it seems to express anger and agitation. I'm trying to figure out how to best convey language without that. I seem to go from one end of sounding like robot to the other end of seemingly conveying agitation. They are just thoughts of what I think. Trying to find a balance between the robot and the wrongly assumed agitation is a current project.

On reading my own words, I don't see where I compare myself to being like the Buddha but pointed to the idea that even a Buddha may not use 'pleasantries'. Did it convey something else for you, Chris?"


Yes, it did convey an implied syllogism:

I am accused of being rude
I am like the Buddha
Therefore I can use the Buddha's words

Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Probably didn't, but the rest of my comments stand. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to reconcile what I hear you claiming as opposed to how you project yourself in your comments recently. Those thing do not square up as I see it. Now, there may be a thousand reasons why this is so, but the contrast seems pretty obvious to me.

Also, as far as attainments and claims go I think we all need to take a few steps back and consider all of our practices in the context of the full range awakening experiences, both deep and broad. It's very possible that everyone has a unique path and that path rolls out over years or decades at its own pace, in its own order. Lately, reading comments here of KFD, I get the impression that vertical progress is being confused with horizontal progress, or maybe is being preferred to it. Also, we are getting ahead of ourselves, in my opinion, when we imply to everyone that certain experiences we might have are permanent, even if they've only been in evidence for a few months.

We are also getting confused about what is and is not affect, and how that is defined, and what are and are not emotions, and how those are defined. A psychologist would call an affectless person deficient. Is that right? I don't know any more, but I think it's really important to take a lot of viewpoints into account when we're making some of the claims we''re making here.

And this place sometimes seems to take on the attributes of an athletic competition. Faster, further, better, deeper can become the theme, with various yogis popping up in a sort of cascade over several weeks with similar claims. And we have to admit, these are not common claims. And if I examine the population of those who are making them I see some stark similarities.

In my eyes there is a wisdom that comes with awakening, an ability to talk, to teach, to learn, to communicate in text, that precludes certain misunderstandings, certainly from being repeated over and over again. So I have to admit that my radar is up over this particular issue and I think reasonably so.

I'm not of the mind that you are making anything up. I commend you on your practice and your dedication to it.

"I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but for others I think this is an important point. Many will project that any conflict is very "un-enlightened". I find this an utterly false notion.
...
To move the perception of reality closer to reality, these metal models must interact with each other, debate each other, and enrich each other - moving each closer to the Truth."

Oh, I agree with you on this point. What I meant is: then why so much *painful* conflict? (A word you used in that same post, that I meant to point out but forgot to.) My implied question was: can there be even more incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing, such that debating is not painful? One where one doesn't get tired of debate (which I find to be quite useful and enlightening, when done well)? I would even say that a debate done well is not a conflict at all, but an exchange of ideas.

Even now I am still surprised when the world becomes clearer than it ever has been, which happens on occasion. From what I hear, I am going to keep being surprised by what clarity is possible.