Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss

I noticed the same thing, but lacked the courage of my convictions. Thank you.

If anyone wants to chat with me on a skype video about things, and see for yourselves if i have aspergers or zero connection with people, then please feel free to add me: nickhalay. I come off as much nicer in the flesh than when writing about dharma and associated things. I ask that you reserve judgemnt untill you have that face to face experience. I have adapted a couple of writing styles over the years and some have failed to convey what I wished. An ongoing process. People project a lot of things onto the written word. Apologies to anyone, especially Adam and Chris, if they felt upset by my posts. I respect Kenneth's stance on this as he has his students to protect. I will delete this account and post only at the HP and the DhO. So that is where you can find me.

Buena suerte y adios!

I'll vouch for Nick. He's the same guy, albeit he seems much more up for chatting these days.

Seeyou on the flipside Nikolai

Nick, I was never upset. I like you being here, always have, and I would hope that you continue to post here. We all have our ups and downs and ins and outs. I know I have, and some have been right here in public on these boards. So let's just keep on keeping on -- as if we had a choice, of course

"I am very sorry that you felt that way. I was simply expressing what I was interpreting in the undertone of the conversation as a whole. If anything, my motivation was to reduce what I interpreted as unnecessary tension rather than create new tension - apologies."

Hey, thanks. Apology accepted, for sure.
No worries.

Nick, I second Chris in saying that I was never upset about your being an active member and contributor here. By suggesting that certain topics be more thoroughly discussed elsewhere, I didn't mean to say that those who wish to discuss such things elsewhere couldn't also chime in on KFDh related discussions.

And while I'm pretty sure you were joking, my limited clinical experience attests to your assertion that you don't have Asperger's; nor any other Autism-spectrum disorder, for that matter. I've never had a conversation with you in any medium other than text, but I have always had a sense that you are a rather colorful and animated chap. I don't know of anyone who could produce as much written material about a subject they love without possessing the kind of spunk you seem to possess.

I'd like to add my "vote" to the call to stop using the voting buttons . It can quickly become a way of lashing out at someone without accountability, because of the anonymity.

I also favor keeping a Buddhist focus on this forum. There are other places for people to discuss AF practice. The problem is that many people have blended Buddhist with AF techniques, some of them successfully, and others less so. There are legitimate questions about possible convergences and divergences between Buddhism and AF. Some people want to be able to discuss the implications of AF practice for questions about enlightenment. But is this forum the right place to do that? I'm of the view that the founder and the moderators have the right to make that call, and it doesn't mean they're being bullies for defining this forum according to its mission statement. I see no need for people to be angry if the forum isn't quite what they want it to be. If I were to suddenly decide that my true interest is in Anglican mysticism, I would stop posting here and find an environment, virtual or otherwise, conducive to that practice.

By the way, some of my best friends are Aspies; in fact, my husband has some Asperger's traits, and my two brothers are autistic. Those of us who are neurotypical should not stigmatize those of us who are not, but respectfully investigate the ways in which all of our minds, in their abundant variety, might respond in practice.

"

As I see it, it is more about the communication styles of a small cliche of practitioners on this and other associated boards. These styles I see to be unnecessarily aggressive and exclusive of other people's view. The style appears either adversarial or dismissive. Resulting these practitioners assuming an authoritarian and 'expert' mode of communication and role on said boards. This stifles dialogue, oppresses and dominates other practitioners and their perspectives.

I often see very little skillful means or wise action around communication amongst this cohort. Certainly little evidence of benevolence, harmlessness and or selflessness. This style seems to assume a great deal of hubris and entitlement.

"

Adam,
I agree completely. However those with the "styles I see to be unnecessarily aggressive and exclusive of other people's view" either actually or essentially run the forum. When I feel the need to experience aggression and exclusion in relation to dharma I'll return to this site. But for now this is no longer acceptable to me. Hopefully the Aspergers will die down among you once differing views have been weeded out.
I wish you all the best on your chosen paths. Thank you for all the help I have received from many of you.

Rev, I have enjoyed reading your thread, and you were the first person to welcome me here. It grieves me to see you so angry; it makes things worse when you lash out in the very same manner that you object to when others do so. And I don't understand in what universe it is "valuable" to insult people who are on the autism spectrum. I didn't like it when Adam did it, I don't like to see you doing it, and I don't like seeing it affirmed with a cowardly anonymous vote.

Conflict is seductive, isn't it. It is so much more enthralling than the day-to-day business of practicing and posting on our threads. This is my weakness as well.

"And I don't understand in what universe it is "valuable" to insult people who are on the autism spectrum. I didn't like it when Adam did it, I don't like to see you doing it, and I don't like seeing it affirmed with a cowardly anonymous vote. "

Laurel, thanks for taking a stand on this issue.

I have a friend with Asperger's, and the lack of understanding and reflexive judgment she often encounters makes her life quite difficult at times.

Whether one finds certain communication styles helpful or not is one thing, but there is no reason to drag otherwise normal people who happen to have a different cognitive style into this.

Hi Laurel!

It was not my intention to insult those with an autistic spectrum disorder. I have worked with people so labeled for years, and know others in my personal life. I apologise if I was unclear in giving you that impression. I was merely suggesting those with a reduced social awareness and limited insight into others' emotional worlds had similar traits; and that such traits were not to be considered a spiritual ideal or advancement in awareness.

Hope that clears that up.

I appreciate the history of stigma you reference, which I do not wish to unintentionally support.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"I will delete this account and post only at the HP and the DhO. So that is where you can find me. "

Although the situation is different, and the people are different; everything you said to August Leo when he deleted his account and left goes double for me! Hang around kid, we'll be glad you did.

Something I think everyone should have a read of:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In the Mahayana, compassion is commonly defined as a function of prajna, namely a selfless spontanious response. I note also that compassion is not one of the Six Paramitas. The closest may be "Dana Paramita", perfection of giving. The risk now is to transpose Christian ethics to Buddhism, assuming that a Buddhist sage must be identical to a Christian saint.

As to the idea of horizontal and vertical development, the Mahayana is not horizontal. Although more open to lay practitioners, the Mahayana path is just more demanding and only starts to make real sense after a deep insight into the emptiness of self. I therefore don't see how or why aiming at gaining a deep insight into anatta (that leads to extinction of the sense of self, being, agency and apparently to the end of self-referencing emotions) could be an obstacle. On the contrary, insight into the emptiness of self is a required step if one is to eventually realize emptiness of self and phenomena, which is as we all know the essence of the Prajnaparamita, the six and last perfection of the Bodhisattva.

Fact is that there is more to it. Fact is that none of us on this forum is a living Buddha as far as I am aware of, and none of us is caliming to be a living Buddha (even though some claim or have claimed to be arahats).

But then, are we to stop talking about some experiences, insights and attainments to avoid making the path look too demanding and elitist for students?

Should we only speak about feeling good, being compassionate good citizens to welcome a large audience? (more clients?)

And in this case, are we not recreating our own mushroom culture?

"As to the idea of horizontal and vertical development, the Mahayana is not horizontal. Although more open to lay practitioners, the Mahayana path is just more demanding and only starts to make real sense after a deep insight into the emptiness of self."

One could see the verticality and horizontality of awakening as just the absolute and relative aspects of reality, that is: verticality is a tendency to emptiness of self and horizontality a tendency to manifested reality (observable bodhisattva path). If we look at it like this, then maybe "horizontality" is a very narrow way to look at it, since manifested reality goes beyond 2 dimensions. If we abide in true emptiness, it also goes beyond 3D. But to keep it simple, when Kenneth mentioned the horizontal aspect, perhaps he was just referring to being connected to phenomena (beings included) from left to right. Maybe we should take this discussion to kenneth's thread (Simile of the hard drive).

In any case, I agree with you Alex, the prajnaparamita can only be discerned after deep insight into the emptiness of self (both sentient beings' self and inert phenomena's self), which, as you say, inevitably leads to the extinction of the sense o self, being, etc.). IMO, after reviewing Nick's practice thread at the HP, it does suggest that he's experiencing just that, maybe not fully reaching the paramita/perfection aspect of wisdom, but getting closer to it. But that is just my opinion, only Nick knows that.

I also think Chris has a very valid point when he questions the understanding of what is and isn't affect in post #127, and perhaps, in order to get a valid definition, maybe some do need to reach better levels of realization (perhaps one of the bodhisattva bhumis).

Several people have recently made claims that they no longer have affect/emotions/feelings and have almost or entirely lost the sense of I/me/mine. I notice, and this is just from reading their comments here, that they appear to continue *display* affective feelings despite the claim. Several of them have freely admitted to that. There could be any number of things going on that would cause that to both appear to THEM as it does and to an EXTERNAL observer as it does. There is some anecdotal evidence that this dichotomy in perception, inside versus outside, may be common. I am referring here to Jeffery Martin's work.

I want to point this out because I think it's important. I also think the situation is more complex than is commonly believed. So complex that we need to consider the various ways that the sense of I/me/mine is both developed and then maintained by human beings, and I suspect there are at least a handful of mechanisms that are involved, including the physical location of the senses, memory, narrative habits of mind, emotions, emotional connections to external events, and so on. Personality is an externally observable phenomenon no matter what, apparently, as are the physical reactions that the human body has when frightened, extremely angry, ecstatic, what have you.

As I said a few days ago, my own practice seems to be trending in this direction. But at least so far there is no one "button" to push that will rid me of the sense of "I/me/mine" and that squares up with what I hear from an awful lot of advanced practitioners. Experience could easily prove me wrong in the future and I will very readily admit to that if it happens. And to be very honest, I find it troublesome when the same extraordinary claims are made by a number of people in such a short span of time. That doe snot mean the claims are untrue, invalid or wrong. It simply means I believe skepticism is in order.

"But then, are we to stop talking about some experiences, insights and attainments to avoid making the path look too demanding and elitist for students? Should we only speak about feeling good, being compassionate good citizens to welcome a large audience? (more clients?)"


Of course we don't stop. We continue to report, to talk, to explain. We also continue to question each other. We have to be able to do all of that.

At the same time, this web site is branded. It's not a completely open forum. If someone were to start posting about the sport of baseball we'd stop them pretty quickly. Someone has to make some judgments about where the reasonable boundaries lie. Otherwise this is just a free for all and the "loudest," most frequently appearing voices rule the site. This same practice can be found all over the web on forums everywhere covering all kinds of topics.

cmarti: "But at least so far there is no one "button" to push that will rid me of the sense of "I/me/mine" and that squares up with what I hear from an awful lot of advanced practitioners."

What are you referring to here?

It was a metaphor. It's not at all important to the heart of matter. I was not talking about practice techniques.

Ah, ok. I didn't think you meant a literal (mental) button like NS, but I think I missed what you were trying to say.

Did you mean, it seems like the practitioners recently claiming AF all did "one thing" and that totally rid them of the I/me/mine? I'm wondering what the "one thing" is, if that's the case.

I think this is directly related to the heart of the matter. You are skeptical of their claims, and are insinuating that perhaps these practitioners still experience emotions or are affected them on some level, yet cannot see that. Maybe they did something to rid themselves of the sense, but nothing more? So I wonder, what it is you think they did to get there. It seems a large part of the misunderstanding between practitioners on the path to AF and those who aren't is exactly what the practice entails.

Beoman, I'm not interested in a discussion about Actual Freedom, okay?

Thanks

Okedoke.

"It seems a large part of the misunderstanding between practitioners on the path to AF and those who aren't is exactly what the practice entails."

I must admit on some levels I am baffled by the AF thing. I have read their voluminous website extensively and I simply don't understand the practice at all. However I have no problem investing in the idea that such a thing is possible. Basically at this time even "if" it is the case that AF practionairs have discovered the best outcome possible; they are light years behind other facets of pragmatic dharma community in their approach to teaching what they've realized.

"I also think the situation is more complex than is commonly believed. So complex that we need to consider the various ways that the sense of I/me/mine is both developed and then maintained by human beings, and I suspect there are at least a handful of mechanisms that are involved, including the physical location of the senses, memory, narrative habits of mind, emotions, emotional connections to external events, and so on.

As I said a few days ago, my own practice seems to be trending in this direction. But at least so far there is no one "button" to push that will rid me of the sense of "I/me/mine" and that squares up with what I hear from an awful lot of advanced practitioners."

From vedana comes craving. From craving comes clinging. From clinging comes becoming. That is I / me / mine. To the extent that craving ceases, that is the extent to which I / me / mine cease. So say the advanced practitioners of the Pali canon.

I saw it was true in my own experience in a way that was more detailed and precise than ever before, and seeing that so directly caused an immediate and radical break in the experience of I / me / mine, which could be described as "no feelings, but some kind of residue of feelings".

Perhaps, similarly, your own careful discernment of this process will be the "button" to push. (There are many ways to discern it, apart from trying to look at it directly...but looking at it directly may be the most helpful in terms of gaining an explicit understanding.)

If you give it a whirl, please let us know either whether it has helped you, or if not, at least whether it has changed your opinion (that I / me / mine is complex rather than simple). If it helps you, perhaps you can then describe the "residue" in a clearer way than I or others have managed to.