No, the point of practice is liberation from suffering. Emotions are equatable to suffering.
jeeprs wrote:This is obviously an important aspect of 'equanimity' which is the ability not to be emotionally affected by external events. It is prized in both Buddhism and also in classical Stoicism (in fact the two traditions are very alike in this respect.)
Possibly it is like a 'purified emotion', or an emotion which is directed at a worthwhile end, rather than a self-centred emotion, which is what many emotions are.
pueraeternus wrote:So I think even in paths that employs passion, it is used in ways that is very different from allowing it to fiddle with one's consciousness.
Huseng wrote:pueraeternus wrote:So I think even in paths that employs passion, it is used in ways that is very different from allowing it to fiddle with one's consciousness.
If this is so, then it seems reasonable to say one should first be free of the passions and not coerced by them before employing them for alternative ends.
In that sense, you don't attempt this until you've mastered the basics and don't suffer the poison any longer.
Huseng wrote:But do you feel emotion when you put your socks on or feed yourself? In the absence of self and other, would there be any need or impulse to have emotions associated with helping others?
jeeprs wrote:So are these 'passions' or 'afflictive emotions'? I think not. But they are not emotion-less, either.
«  What is the attainment of non-perception (asamjnisamdpatti)?
It is a designation indicating the cessation (nirodha)
of the unstable mind and mental activities (asthavaranam cittacaitasikanam)
by means of attention (manasikard) preceded by
the perception of release (nihsaranasamjna) in a person who is
free from craving (vltaragd) in the "wholly pure" state (subhakrtsna),
but who is not yet free from the craving beyond that.
«  What is the attainment of cessation (nirodbasamapatti)?
It is a designation indicating the cessation of the unstable mind
and mental activities by means of attention preceded by the perception
of a state of peace (santavibard) in a person free from
craving in "the sphere of nothingness" (akincanyayatand) and
who is emerging from the "summit of existence" (bbavagrd).
«  What is the state of non-perception (asamjnika)? It is a
designation indicating the cessation of the unstable mind and
mental activities in a person who is born among the gods (deva)
in the state of non-perceptive beings (asamjnisattvd).
jeeprs wrote:It is nevertheless the case that one of the inherent attributes of nirvana is 'bliss' (sukha) even if it is something more than, or different from, emotion in the every-day sense.
What is the definition of the aggregate of feeling? The six
groups of feeling: feeling aroused by contact with the eye, feelings
aroused by contact with the ear, nose, tongue, body and
mental organ. These six groups of feeling are pleasant or unpleasant
or neither pleasant nor unpleasant. Equally, there are
pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant nor unpleasant physical
feelings; pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant nor unpleasant
mental feelings; pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant nor
unpleasant sensual feelings; pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant
nor unpleasant non-sensual feelings; there are also pleasant,
unpleasant, neither pleasant not unpleasant feelings associated
with greed (gredha)-, pleasant, unpleasant, neither
pleasant nor unpleasant feelings associated with renunciation
What is physical feeling? It is feeling associated with the
five kinds of consciousness [in relation to the five physical feelings].
What is mental feeling? It is feeling associated with mental
What is sensual feeling? It is feeling associated with desire
What is non-sensual feeling? It is feeling free from that
What is feeling associated with greed? It is feeling associated
with greed for the five sense pleasures.
What is feeling associated with renunciation? It is feeling
which is free from this [last] desire.
In current Western philosophy, 'reason' is often taken to be the grounds for belief in philosophical materialism. So 'reason' in its own right, is not a means of deliverance from suffering. It is a tool that can be utlized for that end, but the goal itself is beyond the scope of reason as such, isn't it?
«  What is reasoning (vitarkd)? It is mental debating
(manojalpa) which seeks, deriving from volition (cetana) or intellect
(prajiia), and it is mental coarseness (cittasyaiidarikata).
«  What is deliberation (vicara)? It is mental debating
which reflects (pratyaveksaka), deriving from volition (cetana)
and intellect (prajna), and it is mental subtlety (cittasya
suksmata). The function of both consists of supplying a basis to
states of ease or uneasiness (sparsasparsavihara).
mirage wrote: Getting rid of emotions completely in our imperfect state, besides being impossible, would kill our motivation for practice. This is just my viewpoint.
Huseng wrote:mirage wrote: Getting rid of emotions completely in our imperfect state, besides being impossible, would kill our motivation for practice. This is just my viewpoint.
I don't think so. In the absence of emotion there would still be suffering and an inclination to remedy it.
mirage wrote: But feeling the suffering of others implies empathy, compassion, love, all those things Mahayana practice aims to cultivate, and which are, in my opinion, obviously emotions - positive ones.
Of course we can state that in reality there is no "self" and "other", but in our unrealized state this is just dry theory which is insufficient to really motivate anyone. That's why Mahayana texts speak of all sentient beings as our own mothers, and such. To invoke positive emotions in the reader.
After all, I remember H.H. Dalai Lama saying that he often weeps after reading the Bodhicaryāvatāra. Isn't it an emotion?
jeeprs wrote:Huseng wrote:The agreeable feelings of being free from desire are not emotions like happiness and anger.
Fortunately for you, you're not in Sales
Huseng wrote:The idea of positive emotions is problematic because passionate emotions (like love) are generally driven by desire and the kleśa-s.
Huseng wrote:This is why, at least in my mind, the bodhisattva might come across as rather stoic. For the welfare of beings they are not infected by the same emotional passions. Their compassion is motivated by wisdom, not emotion. This is a huge difference between nominal compassion and true compassion. The former is still praiseworthy, but has its limits. The latter is unshakeable.
A means to an end. Skilful means.
Sure, but I imagine he knows the wisdom side of things as well. When addressing common people he has to speak to them in terms they'll understand and easily recognize. The bodhisattva first employs compassionate means because kindness is universally recognized, whereas wisdom is not. Wisdom is often reacted to with hostility.
Users browsing this forum: dharmagoat and 20 guests