Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss

"I absolutely get that this is true for some people here and elsewhere. On the other hand, I've always been interested in understanding the nature of mind and of my experience. "

Do you discern vedana-->craving-->clinging-->becoming (a lawlike and continual procession of four types of experience)?

If so, do you notice I / me / mine occurring in relation to vedana, or (in this sequence) exclusively after vedana?

"When I looked at the pleasant sensation of the breath (vedana) I also noticed a tension hovering over it. I was conflating the two before.

For example I can see how both are there in 1st jhana and that the tension is the irritating aspect of it."

Beautiful.

Good luck!

"Can we all agree to this?

[...]and so personal aims and obsessions develop (bhava) to give (paccaya) (jati) rise to self-consciousness."

For the purpose of explaining my method of interpretation (a method which I have found very helpful in practical terms), I disagree with this.

Jati (birth) to me means literal birth; that one takes a body in a new life after death.

Interpreting the suttas in any way other than a literal way, when a literal interpretation of their meaning is possible, has led me around in so many pointless circles and messed up my practice (over the course of my entire yogi career) in so many ways.

Whether one believes that everything they state is true is a separate issue from whether one ought to understand their intended meaning in a figurative or literal way.

In context of dependent origination, the suttas say, from vedana (conditioned by ignorance) comes craving; from craving comes clinging; from clinging comes becoming; from becoming comes birth [i.e. a new life]; from birth comes death [i.e. the end of that life, potentially leading to birth again]; with the cessation of ignorance, there is the cessation of craving in this life, leaving only vedana, and leading after death to the cessation of new births (and thus to the cessation of future vedana)..

In relation to dependent origination, I understood "birth" and "death" literally, and every term from vedana to becoming as a term for a very specific kind of experience (rather than a figurative or psychological explanation for how things work), and so went searching for the four types of experiences (vedana, craving, clinging, becoming).

So, as for whether the kind of experience that becoming is, is "personal aims and obsessions"...on the assumption that it is a particular kind of experience that occurs in this lawlike way, discern it and find out whether you would describe it that way.

"
Furthermore, there is no bright mirror, no pure unaffected movie screen behind images, no permanent pure awareness behind phenomena. Phenomena are as such self-aware, luminous and empty. This is why Hui-neng answered the 5th Patriarch with the poem showing a deeper understanding:
"

Alex, do you have any concrete practice suggestions for realizing "no permanent pure awareness"?

I can investigate the sense of self and watch it drop away. I can also open to experience and see that there is only THIS or NOW. But, I have not seen no permanent pure awareness - I can only infer that there is no awareness because I have never been able to see it, but this is different from knowing absolutely, experientially that there is no awareness. Thanks.

Feeling irritation arise from the continued use of the anonymous "No" votes...

"Jati (birth) to me means literal birth; that one takes a body in a new life after death.
"

You may want to read this:
what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Bu...Paticcasamuppada.htm

"Dependent arising is a phenomenon that lasts an instant; it is impermanent. Therefore, Birth and Death must be explained as phenomena within the process of dependent arising in everyday life of ordinary people. Right Mindfulness is lost during contacts of the Roots and surroundings. Thereafter, when vexation due to greed, anger, and ignorance is experienced, the ego has already been born. It is considered as one 'birth.' The 'birth' that originates from the mother's womb used in everyday language is not the 'birth' meant in the doctrine of dependent origination. The meaning of birth in everyday language obstructs our understanding of the doctrine. We should instead direct our attention on possible 'future births' [emergence of the ego] at the moment. This is certainly far better than not knowing in what state the 'future birth' of everyday language will deliver us."

"I have observed (in my experience) that the "physical sensations" of anxiety are actually craving or becoming, not vedana.
"

In your experience do you interpret becoming as a physical sensation?

And perhaps I'm wording this question wrong - can we even be aware of becoming or is it too late by that point? Have we already lost attention at the point of becoming?

"If you observe your breath in such a way as to make as intense of a pleasant experience as possible, and you observe the place on your body that has the most prominent instance of becoming ('being'), you will notice

1) A sensation that is actually, genuinely pleasant; wholesome; pure; like ambrosia (vedana); unrelated to self-conceptions of any kind.

2) A "blob" of becoming ('you') hovering over it, distorting the experience into I-feel-this or I-like-this, which is garbage compared to the experience of pleasant vedana.

3) A temporally short pang of craving (tension-pain) sandwiched between the two.

If your dry insight skills are good, you can also notice clinging in between craving and becoming.

Notice that no amount of pleasant vedana and becoming based on pleasant vedana eradicates craving in the moment you experience craving. As I have experienced it, it cannot be "plastered over" by any sensation or form of becoming whatsoever. (Right view!)
"

EndInSight: When I try this - I get an oscillating experience of attention that is jumping from the quite pleasant to irritation and tension. Ultimately I just have to let everything go to find peace. So, basically I find this practice of trying to generate pleasant experience itself to generate an unbalance/unsmooth state. Thoughts?

"I will state explicitly that, for myself, I have always been interested in the end of suffering, not in the end of 3rd person-observable behaviors that are typically related to suffering. "

) Then the only thing you can claim is: "i have the feeling that i have no feelings" LOL

To see the virtues of this method of interpretation...note that what becoming leads to (according to the Buddhist view of things) is birth (having a body in the future). And what leads to death is having been born (in other words, having a body which decays). Once one is born, death is inevitable. And this is what dependent origination says. From birth follows death. From becoming follows birth (that one will be reborn in the future so long as becoming operates). From the cessation of ignorance follows the cessation of craving which leads to the cessation of becoming, and thus the cessation of future birth and all things related to it. However, it does not directly lead to the cessation of the body obtained by past birth (the six sense media, etc.) Those things continue until the body dies. If that were not true (if they all ceased with ignorance), that would mean that from birth, death does not necessarily follow (as nothing would be left to die)...and that is not what dependent origination claims. Thus the distinction between nibbana with remainder (with the effects of past birth remaining) and without remainder.

Literal interpretation has made the suttas fit together very well and very clearly for me.

Non-literal interpretations leave one trying to figure out how there can be the cessation of the six sense media (etc.) even while the body is alive and well and functioning normally. The explanations for how this can be so are (in my opinion) not helpful at all in terms of one's own practice. I found recognizing that vedana are what continue in the absence of craving to be super-helpful to my own practice, while other understandings of what "vedana" means were extremely confusing, led to lots of talking past other practitioners, led to confusion about what jhana was and what it was good for, and did not lead to me (in my opinion) seeing or understanding the fundamental problem of suffering in a clear and beneficial way.

"You may want to read this:
what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Bu...Paticcasamuppada.htm "

As I said, the only way I have gotten the suttas to fit together and to be helpful to me is by understanding them literally.

Would it not make a mess (for example) if we took the doctrine of rebirth to be non-literal? Wouldn't that turn a clear doctrine (which we are free to believe or disbelieve) into a psychological theory which most of the western Buddhist world (who are not becoming enlightened in droves) more-or-less already subscribes to? Would such a change be helpful?

Just food for thought, not meant to be answered.

EDIT: Another thought along these lines. When the Buddha describes how many eons one lives for in the various heaven-worlds, my theory takes that as literal (whether true or false), whereas any theory that sees rebirth figuratively cannot make any sense of this (even outrageous amounts of psychological pleasure or whatnot, which is what "heavenly rebirth" would be, are not guaranteed to last for any length of time whatsoever, let alone "eons"). There are numerous examples like this. This suggests to me that the literal interpretation is the one most likely to get at the original meaning of the suttas, as the non-literal interpretations make nonsense out of so many things they say.

"EndInSight: When I try this - I get an oscillating experience of attention that is jumping from the quite pleasant to irritation and tension. Ultimately I just have to let everything go to find peace. So, basically I find this practice of trying to generate pleasant experience itself to generate an unbalance/unsmooth state. Thoughts?"

If you let everything go, and find peace, I believe that is the mind inclining away (to whatever extent) from craving-clinging-becoming and towards vedana. The absence of craving-clinging-becoming is peace.

For the purposes of discerning the progression of dependent origination (which is what I consider fundamental to Right View), it may or may not be helpful to let everything go.

For the purpose of jhana, or for the purpose of meditation, or for the purpose of reaching the end of craving-clinging-becoming, especially once has obtained right view, it is good to let everything go.

Another way of saying this is...one can generate pleasant experience without feeling like one is trying. One should try to generate pleasant experience by inclining the mind in whatever way does it (which is generally a calm, detatched sort of attention that is not trying to do anything).

"In your experience do you interpret becoming as a physical sensation?

And perhaps I'm wording this question wrong - can we even be aware of becoming or is it too late by that point? Have we already lost attention at the point of becoming?"

I understand becoming to be a "mental echo" or a distorted replica of a sense experience (which itself will be as physical [in a manner of speaking] as the original, apart from the distorted quality).

I say it's possible to be aware of all the steps from vedana to becoming, though not necessarily the best meditation practice (but helpful for developing explicit insight).

"
Another way of saying this is...one can generate pleasant experience without feeling like one is trying. One should try to generate pleasant experience by inclining the mind in whatever way does it (which is generally a calm, detatched sort of attention that is not trying to do anything)."

Thanks

"Hi Loco,

Could you point to these accessible AF audio samples? The only one's I'm aware of are Tarin talking with Daniel and the AFT DVD's with Richard talking to Peter, Vineeto and Pamela(only Richard was AF at the time of those recordings). So, there is Richard and Tarin. Have you found others? I'd be interested in listening to those if you have. Apparently a number of AF and enlightened people have had their brains scanned by someone named Jud who is researching enlightenment. It will be interesting to see all of that info too.

Edit: I'm guessing you don't have Richard's DVD's so you must be referring to some other material besides the talk with Daniel and Tarin. What I'm wondering is if you have perhaps listened to some of Nick's/Owen's podcasts when they were pre-af. To my knowledge they have not done any podcasts since the AF shift. I'm just interested if there are more podcast's that I somehow have not found. If you'd prefer to email me directly about something I have missed instead of a public reply that would be just as welcome

thanks

aaron"

Hi Aaron, I think you are not missing important material. Thank you for pointing out that there is somebody involved who is not labeled AF at that time! This makes the results even more surprising. You probably understand why I will not personalise information. I don't wanna expose somebody who shares his experiences in an open and friendly way to the anonymous public of the internet. there is a danger to become an object of projection and groupdynamic and i have not been asked by the involved persons neither for scientific help nor anything else (I got the DVDs from a friend). If you allow I would like to leave it in this way. If somebody wants to prove he is free of any affects I could be a helpful partner, but I will not work against anybodys interests.

Loco, I think your research is very insteresting, and in some ways jibes with what I expected. My impression of how this works is that the "symbolic overlay" is removed from experience...some of the behaviors related to emotions are simply behaviors that have nothing to do with the symbolic overlay (the symbolic overlay is merely generated in reaction to them), and so continue (and give off signs which, in a normal person, would be indications that a symbolic overlay concerning emotion had been generated); other behaviors are caused by the symbolic overlay itself and so cease. ("Behaviors" include things like qualities of speech, of course.) So my naive guess would be that voice analysis, insofar as it's reliable, would be likely to pick up "emotions" due to some causes (e.g. many social behaviors, which seem fundamental to humans) but not others (agitation, fear, etc.).

If I ever reach what I consider to be full liberation (or close enough), I may be interested in volunteering for this sort of analysis, because I think such data would be interesting and valuable. I respect that you did not make your results public insofar as none of your "subjects" volunteered to be in your study, but I would be glad if whatever results of such a study with me were made public.

To say a little bit more about this...it is amazing to me how I can go through the motions of all kinds of typically-emotional responses (anger, annoyance, enthuasism, excitement, etc.) and yet have no emotional component to that behavior (in the normal sense of emotion). In general, the mind knows how to behave in various ways that are suited to social interactions, and it will continue to direct behavior in those ways...I can override the default inclinations of the mind with ease if I am paying attention, but occasionally I find it perfectly useful to let those behavioral programs run, and occasionally I don't remember to pay attention and some bizarre behavior gets by me.

If you ran your software on my speech right now, I doubt you would notice any difference between me and a normal person (as I speak just like a normal person does)...except, it is possible that I could find a way to clamp down on all of these "behavioral programs" (if i could see the subtle ways that the mind is inclined to alternate vocal pitch / phrasing / etc.), in which case you might find little / no indication of emotion.

Insofar as one's social behavior remains normal, I expect that the results of running your software on a highly enlightened person's speech will remain similar to what would be expected from running it on a normal person's speech (albeit with some emotional indications reduced to the low-normal range).

"To say a little bit more about this...it is amazing to me how I can go through the motions of all kinds of typically-emotional responses (anger, annoyance, enthuasism, excitement, etc.) and yet have no emotional component to that behavior (in the normal sense of emotion). In general, the mind knows how to behave in various ways that are suited to social interactions, and it will continue to direct behavior in those ways...I can override the default inclinations of the mind with ease if I am paying attention, but occasionally I find it perfectly useful to let those behavioral programs run, and occasionally I don't remember to pay attention and some bizarre behavior gets by me.

If you ran your software on my speech right now, I doubt you would notice any difference between me and a normal person (as I speak just like a normal person does)...except, it is possible that I could find a way to clamp down on all of these "behavioral programs" (if i could see the subtle ways that the mind is inclined to alternate vocal pitch / phrasing / etc.), in which case you might find little / no indication of emotion.

Insofar as one's social behavior remains normal, I expect that the results of running your software on a highly enlightened person's speech will remain similar to what would be expected from running it on a normal person's speech (albeit with some emotional indications reduced to the low-normal range)."

Ditto!

"To say a little bit more about this...it is amazing to me how I can go through the motions of all kinds of typically-emotional responses (anger, annoyance, enthuasism, excitement, etc.) and yet have no emotional component to that behavior (in the normal sense of emotion). In general, the mind knows how to behave in various ways that are suited to social interactions, and it will continue to direct behavior in those ways...I can override the default inclinations of the mind with ease if I am paying attention, but occasionally I find it perfectly useful to let those behavioral programs run, and occasionally I don't remember to pay attention and some bizarre behavior gets by me.

If you ran your software on my speech right now, I doubt you would notice any difference between me and a normal person (as I speak just like a normal person does)...except, it is possible that I could find a way to clamp down on all of these "behavioral programs" (if i could see the subtle ways that the mind is inclined to alternate vocal pitch / phrasing / etc.), in which case you might find little / no indication of emotion.

Insofar as one's social behavior remains normal, I expect that the results of running your software on a highly enlightened person's speech will remain similar to what would be expected from running it on a normal person's speech (albeit with some emotional indications reduced to the low-normal range)."

Perhaps this question is a bit obvious but I think its worth exploring: A table cannot assume itself existing, hence we can assume a table always acts as a table without hesitation. What would a current EndInSight, Nick, Owen act like in the manifested reality?

Edited for clarity

"Hi Aaron, I think you are not missing important material. Thank you for pointing out that there is somebody involved who is not labeled AF at that time! This makes the results even more surprising. You probably understand why I will not personalise information. I don't wanna expose somebody who shares his experiences in an open and friendly way to the anonymous public of the internet. there is a danger to become an object of projection and groupdynamic and i have not been asked by the involved persons neither for scientific help nor anything else (I got the DVDs from a friend). If you allow I would like to leave it in this way. If somebody wants to prove he is free of any affects I could be a helpful partner, but I will not work against anybodys interests."

Hi Loco,

Yes, I see you point and I'm more than happy to leave things as they are. I'm not really sure testing devices(particularly one's involving voice) are up to the task of sorting this stuff out anyway to be honest, but it's interesting nontheless. You're welcome about the info. It seemed relevant to point that fact out.

thanks

aaron

Hi guys , sorry if i am a bit short in time..

while it is easy to prove the existence of affects and instinctual passions, it is rather tricky to prove the ego/no-ego because there is no correlating structure in the brain.

there doesn't exist an egocenter or something like it. the ego is a process in which information gets organised in a special way. already freud discribed it as the process of inner negotiation between instinctual wishes/drives and environmental possibilities. therefore it is conflict in itself.

means: if you feel the instinctual wish to burp, you (the ego) would decide not to, if you are sitting in the office of your boss (environment). same with desire, aggression, etc.

therefore the ego is a kind of moving target because needs and environment are in constant change. (which ego? you as a father, as a hungry, today, tommorrow, as a son, a employee, a fighter, a cardriver, a helper, a friend, a boy, a lover, sleeping, ...)

as far as i understand it the controversial part of AF lies in the postulate that affect can disappear at all, not so much that the symbolic overlay/egoic quality of it can be removed.

while i am sure the second can be done, i am doubting that affect can disappear completely, 1. because of my own experience with pces and 2. because even if you could switch off the affectprovidingstructures completely (or their perception) you would loose their other functions too, which are quite relevant for survival and orientation in the world.

so the way the founder of AF uses language seems to be more an expression of his individuality and fun to play with words and not so much a scientifically ment description.

"as far as i understand it the controversial part of AF lies in the postulate that affect can disappear at all, not so much that the symbolic overlay/egoic quality of it can be removed.

while i am sure the second can be done, i am doubting that affect can disappear completely, 1. because of my own experience with pces and 2. because even if you could switch off the affectprovidingstructures completely (or their perception) you would loose their other functions too, which are quite relevant for survival and orientation in the world."

As far as I can see, affect = symbolic overlay.

It's possible you use the term affect in a different way. (If so, that may be helpful to realize, as Richard's language has worn out its welcome, and seems to confuse people more than anything.)

If you've had PCEs and have a different way to explain what remains, why not explain it in your way and see if that catches on in some way? Could be useful.

"The essence of love and compassion is understanding, the ability to recognize the physical, material, and psychological suffering of others, to put ourselves "inside the skin" of the other. We "go inside" their body, feelings, and mental formations, and witness for ourselves their suffering. Shallow observation as an outsider is not enough to see their suffering. We must become one with the subject of our observation. When we are in contact with another's suffering, a feeling of compassion is born in us. Compassion means, literally, "to suffer with.""

I recently came across this page, just thought I'd share:

www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/Thich-Nhat-Hanh-love-q.html

maybe I intend to stir the pod a bit here (surprise!), but in a manifest world where there is no good or bad, why is compassion arising?

"maybe I intend to stir the pod a bit here (surprise!), but in a manifest world where there is no good or bad, why is compassion arising?"

...and I meant the "pot" on that one!