How do you know if a feeling is good or bad

[Nahm]

@4201

So many ideas about meditation. None of which are in meditation. You mentally manhandle and care not about the discord. Right, in any way, of any one, doesn’t equal alignment. 

[mandyjw]

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

Let it be clear that while this post (and my forum usage in general) could be a distraction from feeling, I'm not saying here that I can't go back to feeling or that I'm not the prodigal son.

If it feels bad to determine and believe that writing, asking questions and conversing is a waste and a distraction and "not doing the work" I'd say feeling is saying, "nope" to that. I'm definitely not saying that. I would say, feel when you write, and read. You always are anyway

 

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

Is this feeling response biological or conceptual in nature?

 Not two. Really, neither. It's not even a response because response implies it comes after. It does NOT come after. 

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

I'm not saying it isn't true but it feels shallow as an understanding. All it says it that "feeling works" but why? how?

It "feels" shallow? Really? My dog loves to be scritched behind the ears. He absolutely does not give a shit as to "why" he likes that. He just thoroughly enjoys it, it feels good. I don't find that shallow, I find it quite pure and such a breath of fresh air. Feeling good does not need a reason why. You say you want a whole lot of stuff, understanding, etc, etc, but really you want it because of the way you think it will make you feel. Turns out the way to getting it is... feeling. Because it is an end unto itself. No duality. No time. Not two. 

 

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

Next time you happen to doubt feeling (happens every day for me), what is going to hold you back? This very surface level idea that "feeling is the way home and that's it". Perhaps like me you've been trying to beat this idea into your head that "feeling works", "following feeling leads to happiness" or "feeling guides". But in my case, beating ideas into my head doesn't work and all it does is create this notion of "what I should do" vs what I am doing, creating a lot of guilt and shame for not feeling.

The guilt is saying, "now, now, now, now. You can only feel now. You are guilty for not feeling, a minute ago? NOW is the only time you feel! NOW! NOOOOOOW!" 

Obviously beating an idea in your head... is not feeling? It's thinking. Trying to get it. Get it through, get it in there. Nope. Those are thoughts. Thoughts are not feeling. Those thoughts feel bad because, you're always feeling. So how could you guilt yourself for not feeling, when you're always feeling? You can't! You cannot! That's exactly why it feels bad. 

It's brilliant. Not in the "the light took a million years to get here from the star, but a you ARE the light kinda brilliance." It's immediate. Immediate. Immediate. 

And when you ask "how", I just say.... 

Wow. Look at the stars! This is sheeeeeeer brilliance. The astronomer told me some great facts about them that really expanded my ideas of what they were and what was possible, but now if he'd just shut the hell up I'd just look in complete wonder. 

I wonder? I wonder and I wonder. It's a wonder. YOU are a wonder. WONDER OF WONDERS. 

How does wonder feel? 

If I tell you that I love Leonardo Dicaprio and you send him to my front door and I open the door, freak out, crap my pants, and hide in the closet, I really only dualistically loved the idea of him. Understanding/Enlightenment will not settle for this fear/revere "longing after an idea of something" bullshit, it wants real love, cause you do. Real love is fully felt, real love feeeeeeeels like love. It knows no separation between small town girl and revered super famous movie star. All else is just an idea. Same idea if I love knowledge and understanding. It will not settle for longing after the idea of it. It knows no separation between the one who does not know and the known. 

All your knowledge, all your understanding is based in feeling. And you are trying to co opt it all by saying "Nope. I must understand first before I go there." While all along, you're feeling anyway. There's no where to go. 

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by mandyjw

[Guest EmptyVase]

6 hours ago, 4201 said:

I have a dreamboard although I don't feel particularly passionate about my dreams lately as the focus is to pay my rent.

Just a suggestion. Why dontcha write what you want on it (such as paying your rent, if that's what you want).

[4201]

9 hours ago, Nahm said:

@4201

So many ideas about meditation. None of which are in meditation. You mentally manhandle and care not about the discord. Right, in any way, of any one, doesn’t equal alignment. 

Yes, ideas about meditation are not meditation. But if you want to convince someone to meditate, all you can use is ideas about meditation. Wouldn't the most accurate understanding of meditation be the best to convince someone (or a self) to meditate? 

[Nahm]

@4201

There’s no one to convince in meditation. There’s no understanding in meditation. There’s no one to convince to meditate. 
?

[4201]

On 12/25/2021 at 6:48 AM, Nahm said:

@4201

There’s no one to convince to meditate. 
?

In the absolute yes, in the relative where I'm stuck most of the time there is. Likewise, what's the point of the dreamboard if not to help someone stuck in the relative?

On 12/24/2021 at 3:23 PM, mandyjw said:

All your knowledge, all your understanding is based in feeling. And you are trying to co opt it all by saying "Nope. I must understand first before I go there." While all along, you're feeling anyway. There's no where to go. 

Honestly no, I don't think they are exclusive and in no way I'm saying "no to feeling" and taking understanding for it. I personally find value and pleasure in understanding how things work on a materialistic level, even if that's not necessary. I don't have the understanding I'm looking for at the moment, but I still meditate, I still feel. I think it would be helpful but in no way not having it prevents me from anything I could previously do. I believe getting that understanding would help me personally and no argument for "feeling" really discredit any argument for understanding. Why assume they are mutually exclusive?

Merry Christmas btw @Nahm @mandyjw!

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

In the absolute yes, in the relative where I'm stuck most of the time there is. Likewise, what's the point of the dreamboard if not to help someone stuck in the relative?

To any extent it could truly be said you are stuck, it isn’t in the relative, it is believing conjecture. 

The point of the dreamboard is conscious creating. Right now, write what you want on it. Thoughts will arise as to ways of going about it, experiences you desire. Write them on the board. If ‘stuck in the relative’ is desired, write that on the board. If not, write what is. Today = Christmas. Merry Christmas. Write your list. Stop being so naughty. 

[mandyjw]

@4201 Merry Christmas! 

[Mosess]

How do you know that red is red?

[4201]

On 24/12/2021 at 3:23 PM, mandyjw said:

Not two. Really, neither. It's not even a response because response implies it comes after. It does NOT come after. 

This is exactly the thing I'm curious about though. Even if you say "it does not come after", there is stuff that may "come after" which might be interpreted as part of "feeling". If I see a bear and I get scared, my heart will start racing, blood will shoot fast to my legs so I can run as fast as I can. This increased heartbeat, the bloodflow, the digestion that stops possibly all can be felt and be associated to what's happening. Yet this is all physiological and I realize this is probably not what we mean we we talk about "feeling", just that I think it's important to define feeling properly and possibly separate it from physiological reactions like those, especially when using the word "response" near "feeling".

Physiological reactions to emotions in fact are numerous and varied. Each emotion has its physiological response and this response is more of "getting the body ready to what's happening". (Disgust gets the stomach ready to expell what was previously eaten, Pride gets you ready to flex your chest, Anger gets you ready to punch drywall, etc...)

I recognize that none of those physiological responses are what feeling is, they are merely the body getting ready to handle a situation. What puzzles me however, is why would "feeling" be "in the body"? If an idea feels bad, why would that idea have an associated "body location" to communicate the "nah dude"? 

 

On 24/12/2021 at 3:23 PM, mandyjw said:

It "feels" shallow? Really? My dog loves to be scritched behind the ears. He absolutely does not give a shit as to "why" he likes that. He just thoroughly enjoys it, it feels good. I don't find that shallow, I find it quite pure and such a breath of fresh air. Feeling good does not need a reason why. You say you want a whole lot of stuff, understanding, etc, etc, but really you want it because of the way you think it will make you feel. Turns out the way to getting it is... feeling. Because it is an end unto itself. No duality. No time. Not two. 

Likewise, you can have a shallow understanding of how rollercoasters work and still get massive thrill out of them. You don't need to understand something to enjoy it.
 

On 24/12/2021 at 3:23 PM, mandyjw said:

All your knowledge, all your understanding is based in feeling. And you are trying to co opt it all by saying "Nope. I must understand first before I go there." While all along, you're feeling anyway. There's no where to go. 

The idea that "you must feel to understand", like that there's some order in which those things must happen for it to "work" and that you can "do it wrong" by wanting understanding instead of feeling is imo, a misconception. As you said we cannot "not feel" so the idea that one "should feel" doesn't say much.

What should one "do"? Stop doing what it is currently doing. How? Put all focus on one thing (breath, body, single point, etc.). But then if someone puts all their focus on their body, is this "feeling" or is this observation of physiological phenomena? (Tensions in muscles, heartbeat, etc..)

If feeling is a thing you are always doing then the definition of the word "feeling" loses absolutely all meaning. The definition of the word feeling doesn't define anything from anything. This is the same as the word Consciousness, One, God, etc.
 

Edited January 13, 2022 by 4201

[mandyjw]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

If an idea feels bad, why would that idea have an associated "body location" to communicate the "nah dude"? 
 

It doesn't, the location in the body would be another after thought. Or it could be used to point someone to the actual sensation and drop the thoughts that are saying the negative emotion is rightfully caused by outside circumstances. 

Imagine I have a conversation that does not go my way and interpret it such a way that causes me to feel insecure, and then a lot of anger and blame. I'm driving later that day and my mind is wandering thinking about it, and I feel negative emotion. A car pulls out in front of me, slightly. They could have waited. I get REALLY angry and think it's because of the driver in the car. I'm already in this emotion and so my experience is already colored by it. It's reflected back to me. 

If I were instead to feel the direct sensation and express emotion, to realize the negative emotion is not because I've been wronged but because I'm thinking thoughts that don't resonate with who I really am, I would feel and release the emotion. I would not continue to see the world through that lens and therefore attract events and interpret as "me against the world." 

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

The idea that "you must feel to understand", like that there's some order in which those things must happen for it to "work" and that you can "do it wrong" by wanting understanding instead of feeling is imo, a misconception. As you said we cannot "not feel" so the idea that one "should feel" doesn't say much.

The idea of "my hand" is vastly different from the direct now sensation of my hand, in fact, the direct sensation is always something completely unique. See for yourself. You've got these wild fantastical ideas about what you are and who you are and how things are, and how emotions feel, and you've entertained them so long you even call them mundane. They are so wild and fantastical. All you know is knowing (verb), directly, now. That's all you've ever, ever had and you don't even really have it, it has you. Wild and fantastical ideas about what's "known" and what's mundane say otherwise. If you're going to have wild and fantastical ideas, by all means have fun with them. Write a children's book about a unicorn named George who goes through the drive through every night at 3AM for cheeseburger and a milkshake. But for God's sake, don't suffer for your wild and fantastical ideas. Don't pass them off as "mundane" and "survival" or whatever else.

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

What should one "do"? Stop doing what it is currently doing. How? Put all focus on one thing (breath, body, single point, etc.). But then if someone puts all their focus on their body, is this "feeling" or is this observation of physiological phenomena? (Tensions in muscles, heartbeat, etc..)

It's fleeting, unexpected and ephemeral. Don't call it anything. Or call it George and be conscious that you made it up on the fly. You see what's happening here? YOU CALLED IT A HAND AND FORGOT WHAT IT ALWAYS DIRECTLY IS. YOUR HAND. YOUR GODDAMN HAND. It was always in front of you, right under your nose. Not even, but closer, closer, closer, closer, than that. You think you're gonna get more understanding throwing in other concepts like physiological phenomena? Tension in the muscles? You're so insistent on using your mind, you forget you've never directly experienced a fixed thing called a mind. Never. All you have is thoughts, saying otherwise. 

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

If feeling is a thing you are always doing then the definition of the word "feeling" loses absolutely all meaning. The definition of the word feeling doesn't define anything from anything. This is the same as the word Consciousness, One, God, etc.

The word "fork" loses its meaning if you write it out or repeat it long enough. It never had any inherent meaning. Language is magic. Sheer magic. It's George the unicorn. He didn't exist 20 minutes ago, now I'm very fond of him, even though he still doesn't exist. I've got George and you've got "understanding" and "mind". You're the one who is insisting to understand through language before he will directly explore feeling. Sit down to meditate for 15 minutes, breathe deeply, invite in pleasure, satisfaction and relaxation, feel the charge up and down your spine, Whatcha got outside of fleeting thoughts about it? What? 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by mandyjw

[4201]

50 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

It doesn't, the location in the body would be another after thought. Or it could be used to point someone to the actual sensation and drop the thoughts that are saying the negative emotion is rightfully caused by outside circumstances. 

If it's not actually there, why would it be a useful pointer? If there's absolutely nothing between "feeling" and "my belly", why would you tell me to focus on my belly as an attempt to make me feel? 

58 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Imagine I have a conversation that does not go my way and interpret it such a way that causes me to feel insecure, and then a lot of anger and blame. I'm driving later that day and my mind is wandering thinking about it, and I feel negative emotion. A car pulls out in front of me, slightly. They could have waited. I get REALLY angry and think it's because of the driver in the car. I'm already in this emotion and so my experience is already colored by it. It's reflected back to me. 

If I were instead to feel the direct sensation and express emotion, to realize the negative emotion is not because I've been wronged but because I'm thinking thoughts that don't resonate with who I really am, I would feel and release the emotion. I would not continue to see the world through that lens and therefore attract events and interpret as "me against the world." 

I recognize that being angry is some sort of mindset one takes on and that it affects the way one interprets. I fully agree with your example. It's great to state it clearly so we can stop conflating emotions (labelling of feeling), physiological body reactions to emotions and feeling.
 

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

The idea of "my hand" is vastly different from the direct now sensation of my hand, in fact, the direct sensation is always something completely unique. See for yourself.

I absolutely recognize that "my hand" is a label, a part of my experience or I could say "consciousness" I decided to call my hand. Focusing on my hand for a while though feels a bit like doing the plank. The more time I spend concentrating on something, the more effort it seems to require. I don't have a formal definition of effort or anything like this, just that this is the impression I'm left with and I generally try to concentrate everyday in my meditation.

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

You've got these wild fantastical ideas about what you are and who you are and how things are, and how emotions feel, and you've entertained them so long you even call them mundane. They are so wild and fantastical. All you know is knowing (verb), directly, now. That's all you've ever, ever had and you don't even really have it, it has you. Wild and fantastical ideas about what's "known" and what's mundane say otherwise. If you're going to have wild and fantastical ideas, by all means have fun with them. Write a children's book about a unicorn named George who goes through the drive through every night at 3AM for cheeseburger and a milkshake. But for God's sake, don't suffer for your wild and fantastical ideas. Don't pass them off as "mundane" and "survival" or whatever else.

With all due respect I never called ideas, emotions nor feelings mundane. Perhaps you think understanding how those phenomena correspond with the theory of human biology and materialism will make them lose their magic? But that's entirely your opinion, I share no part in any of those judgements. 

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

It's fleeting, unexpected and ephemeral. Don't call it anything. Or call it George and be conscious that you made it up on the fly. You see what's happening here? YOU CALLED IT A HAND AND FORGOT WHAT IT ALWAYS DIRECTLY IS. YOUR HAND. YOUR GODDAMN HAND. It was always in front of you, right under your nose. Not even, but closer, closer, closer, closer, than that.

If the word feeling is a label that points to the same exact thing as Awareness/Consciousness/God/Me/You/One/Many/Everything/Nothing/Absolute etc.  well sure I mean I have no personal vendetta against the label "feeling".

But in my mind, (and I apologize for having had the wrong definition of feeling), feeling differed from absolutely nothing in two ways: it had some relation to the body (usually we feel things in the body) and "feeling guides".

But perhaps that feeling has anything to do with the body was just me conflating actual feeling with physiological sensations and actually feeling has absolutely nothing to do with the body.
 

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

You think you're gonna get more understanding throwing in other concepts like physiological phenomena? Tension in the muscles? You're so insistent on using your mind, you forget you've never directly experienced a fixed thing called a mind. Never. All you have is thoughts, saying otherwise. 

No, I'm simply bringing the concept of physiological sensations to de-conflate them from feeling. Isn't removing the tensions in the muscles of your body the #1 thing you do in meditation? I'm not saying feeling has something to do with muscle tension per-say but isn't there a possibility that "why" feeling feels at particular places in the body could be that we tend to contract muscles unnesserarily/unconsciously when we resist feeling/experience emotions? Does feeling have anything relation to body location or is this entirely physiological responses that have nothing to do with feeling?

In no way am I claiming anything about wanting to use mind or having experienced mind or no mind. What I really want there is clear and accurate definitions. When you say feeling, what do you even mean? When other people say feeling, what do they mean?

Here's something Eckart Tolle says in his book "A new Earth"

Quote

The physical organism, your body, has its own intelligence, as does the organism of every other life­form. And that intelligence reacts to what your mind is saying, reacts to your thoughts. So emotion is the body's reaction to your mind. The body's intelligence is, of course, an inseparable part of universal intelligence, one of its countless manifestations.

I've read this a couple of years ago and always assumed that was feeling. But perhaps that wasn't feeling and just physiological reactions? Tolle is clearly talking about experiencing a mechanism of the body, which would be less direct than feeling.

"You're so insistent on using your mind" Is there any reason to think this would be problematic? I also spend a fair bit of time everyday practicing meditation, concentration and "not using my mind" (despite mind not really being a "thing" I can "use"). I don't see why wanting to work with clear definitions and clear understandings be in conflict with feeling or listening to body-sensations or consciousness.

In fact I think seeing a problem with this is a deep misconception. Yes identifying as "the one who insist on using their mind" is a thought which would feel bad and projecting that thought onto someone else would feel bad as well, but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with what is labelled "using your mind".
 

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

The word "fork" loses its meaning if you write it out or repeat it long enough. It never had any inherent meaning. Language is magic. Sheer magic. It's George the unicorn. He didn't exist 20 minutes ago, now I'm very fond of him, even though he still doesn't exist. I've got George and you've got "understanding" and "mind". You're the one who is insisting to understand through language before he will directly explore feeling. 

The concept you are bringing here is synaptic fatigue. But in no way does that discredit language and the value of clear definitions. Yes language is a  creation, but within that construct you can have accurately defined things and poorly defined things. A circle for instance (set of all points within some distance) is a very well defined construct, there's no debate on what is a circle! Race however, is a much more blurry concept. What defines which are the races? Is there a finite number of races? What about children of inter-racial couples? Are different tribes of Africa the same race just because they share the same skin color, despite their incredible genetic diversity?

2 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Sit down to meditate for 15 minutes, breathe deeply, invite in pleasure, satisfaction and relaxation, feel the charge up and down your spine, Whatcha got outside of fleeting thoughts about it? What? 

I actually did it. I wasn't much different to the normal 30-minute daily meditation I did for the last couple of months only missing a single day (and proud of it). It usually goes like "OK let's focus entirely on breath" and then Poof! I find myself having been distracted after a couple of minutes and then I refocus again. Do that a couple of times and then it's over.

In no way I am trying to discredit meditation and I do truly hope it will eventually get me somewhere through sheer practice. But I find contemplation to be much more useful to me to find what I'm assuming. I generally just use a journal and I write down whatever issue I'm facing then I contemplate it and let my mind do whatever it wants until it finds an answer and write it down. Usually this form of contemplation gets me out of any "problem" I'm into and shows me what was the assumption I was having.

 

 

 

[WelcometoReality]

On 2021-12-23 at 7:12 AM, 4201 said:

Supposedly, feeling guides you and let you know whether a thought is good or bad, aligns or not, is honest or not.

But this way of interpreting feeling is quite the duality. When you experience a thought and a feeling is associated to it, how do you know whether the feeling aligns with the thought or does not? I can sense the tentation to answer "by feeling" but how did you know what the feeling means? If feeling is like any other perception, how could it say anything at all? Shouldn't it be entirely non dualistic?

No the feeling doesn't say anything, the feeling just IS. It's thought that says that feeling says it aligns with the thought or not. All interpretations comes from thought.

 

On 2021-12-23 at 7:12 AM, 4201 said:

Is it the same for feeling, am I the one judging feeling to be good or bad? If so, how can it even work?

Thought judges the feeling. Good and bad doesn't exist without a thought.

 

On 2021-12-23 at 7:12 AM, 4201 said:

If it is the same thought that is being "evaluated" by feeling but also "evaluating" feeling (both judging and being judged) how could it provide any feedback at all about whether the thought is good or bad? If you think a thought to be true then wouldn't you also associate the feeling that comes with it to be good?

Thought evaluates another thought by the feeling that comes with it. If the feeling is "bad" the 2nd thought judges that the 1st thought was "bad". But there is no "good" or "bad" thoughts or feelings without the thought that it's "good" or "bad". 

 

On 2021-12-23 at 7:12 AM, 4201 said:

The idea that a thought is good or bad is actually a thought so it feels weird that feeling actually communicates thoughts. The fact it "feels weird" probably indicate this isn't the way to look at it. But then if I challenge the weirdness in feeling, I get into a place where feeling stop meaning anything. I can see thoughts saying "that's not it" but how do I even know that's true?

Yes feelings doesn't mean anything, feeling just IS.

What would be the value of thought if all meaning was illusiory? It would lose all power it had so of course it says "that's not it". ?

[Nahm]

8 hours ago, 4201 said:

In no way I am trying to discredit meditation and I do truly hope it will eventually get me somewhere through sheer practice. But I find contemplation to be much more useful to me to find what I'm assuming

I = me.  Not two. ?

[4201]

3 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

No the feeling doesn't say anything, the feeling just IS. It's thought that says that feeling says it aligns with the thought or not. All interpretations comes from thought.

Thought judges the feeling. Good and bad doesn't exist without a thought.

Thought evaluates another thought by the feeling that comes with it. If the feeling is "bad" the 2nd thought judges that the 1st thought was "bad". But there is no "good" or "bad" thoughts or feelings without the thought that it's "good" or "bad". 

Yes feelings doesn't mean anything, feeling just IS.

What would be the value of thought if all meaning was illusiory? It would lose all power it had so of course it says "that's not it". ?

Absolutely! This is it. Thank you! Feeling is just the present moment. Whatever you think of the present moment, it keeps being itself. It does not "respond" it just "does or doesn't match" the description or interpretation I have of it. 

The confusion really came from the idea that feeling is some sort of mechanism that guides. The word mechanism, to me, really implied the definition that Eckart Tolle gave which is not true. There's no "feeling response", there's only feeling/reality/present moment being itself independent of thought. Still, the mind prepares the body for whatever situation it thinks it will face by changing the body's physiology. But that's not a response either, that's more like the mind controlling the body and it is not done "to guide the mind".

That being said, I can still see how "feeling guides" but in the same way I can see how "seeing guides". But not because "seeing" does something or is part of some mechanism, but just because it stays itself regardless of the opinion we may have of what is seen.

I apologize @mandyjw for not getting it with what you said. I realize you were saying the same thing, especially when you said "it's neither conceptual nor biological".

Edited January 14, 2022 by 4201

[4201]

34 minutes ago, Nahm said:

I = me.  Not two. ?

On the same note, He = Him, She = Her and They = Them 

I don't find separation between I and me in the sentences I wrote. I don't even see how someone might assume "I am different from me".

That being said your previous message about the dreamboard was useful, thanks. My original idea of the dreamboard was that it was something you write your dreams on and then don't touch but you made it clear it's something you can use daily and not necessarily for long-time desires.

[mandyjw]

9 hours ago, 4201 said:

If it's not actually there, why would it be a useful pointer? If there's absolutely nothing between "feeling" and "my belly", why would you tell me to focus on my belly as an attempt to make me feel? 

Exactly why you focus on anything during meditation, to focus on it rather than the thoughts. To drop my focus on thoughts I only have to focus on something else. 

9 hours ago, 4201 said:

I absolutely recognize that "my hand" is a label, a part of my experience or I could say "consciousness" I decided to call my hand. Focusing on my hand for a while though feels a bit like doing the plank. The more time I spend concentrating on something, the more effort it seems to require. I don't have a formal definition of effort or anything like this, just that this is the impression I'm left with and I generally try to concentrate everyday in my meditation.

I'd play around with genuine wonder and curiosity about rather than determined focus. Time is a thought, so the experience that "the more time I spend concentrating on something the more effort it seems to require" is actually in fact indicating that you are resisting and believing thoughts more and more. As that thought arises now, and you focus on it, how does it feel? Based in time, a limitation, it's is not true. 

9 hours ago, 4201 said:

No, I'm simply bringing the concept of physiological sensations to de-conflate them from feeling. Isn't removing the tensions in the muscles of your body the #1 thing you do in meditation? I'm not saying feeling has something to do with muscle tension per-say but isn't there a possibility that "why" feeling feels at particular places in the body could be that we tend to contract muscles unnesserarily/unconsciously when we resist feeling/experience emotions? Does feeling have anything relation to body location or is this entirely physiological responses that have nothing to do with feeling?

Yes, it all goes together. Negative emotion when not listened to chronically will eventually result in dis-ease. Thought would like to just shoot the messenger. Yes, we store emotions and tensions in the body, the grand design of actual physical muscle tension is good and not a problem, these emotional releases are much stranger and bigger than that, because... we aren't our bodies. Our bodies are a manifestation, manifestation is what comes late. Thoughts are manifesting, emotions are the indicator of what those thoughts are manifesting. The thought itself doesn't matter the emotion does. Because we are only aware now, feeling is what guides thought because to directly feel we must always be now. 

You came to think, explore, contemplate, but as we know, we can get lost in thought, and then it feels bad. We want to return home, like the prodigal son. Emotion, ultimately feeling, is always the way to clear the slate and come home. You're never without feeling, so when you think you are never without emotional guidance. It's what allows you the best of both worlds. Have your cake and eat it too. 

If I tease you and call you something insulting and you are feeling good and you know that I actually really like you, you'll maybe insult me back and our words will be horrible and a fun time will be had by all. 

If I'm doubting that you actually like me and I'm doubting myself and we have a disagreement and you call me some insult that triggers all that insecurity, I just became aware of something I had within me. I can shoot the messenger and blame you and continue to doubt myself, or I can go "home" and feel it and examine the thoughts. People who are experiencing negative emotion attract others who reflect it, just like the example of the car pulling out in front of me. If I hold in the hatred and the self doubt, rather than opening to feeling I "take it upon myself". All hatred is stored tension taken upon oneself. Thought says it's about another, outside, but it is all against oneself. This is why the "there are no others" pointer is not something that leaves you as some lonely god, but is the essence of love/feeling itself.

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by mandyjw

[mandyjw]

42 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Absolutely! This is it. Thank you! Feeling is just the present moment. Whatever you think of the present moment, it keeps being itself. It does not "respond" it just "does or doesn't match" the description or interpretation I have of it. 

The confusion really came from the idea that feeling is some sort of mechanism that guides. The word mechanism, to me, really implied the definition that Eckart Tolle gave which is not true. There's no "feeling response", there's only feeling/reality/present moment being itself independent of thought. Still, the mind prepares the body for whatever situation it thinks it will face by changing the body's physiology. But that's not a response either, that's more like the mind controlling the body and it is not done "to guide the mind".

That being said, I can still see how "feeling guides" but in the same way I can see how "seeing guides". But not because "seeing" does something or is part of some mechanism, but just because it stays itself regardless of the opinion we may have of what is seen.

I apologize @mandyjw for not getting it with what you said. I realize you were saying the same thing, especially when you said "it's neither conceptual nor biological".

?

Just like directly NOW what I'm seeing in front of me directly is the only "truth". But if I give a police report later about what color the car was that pulled out in front of me, it's all gonna be colored cause I was seeing red. Maybe it was green. Who knows? Direct seeing does not presume to "know" what it is seeing, yet it is the only real knowing. 

[Nahm]

46 minutes ago, 4201 said:

I don't find separation between I and me in the sentences I wrote. I don't even see how someone might assume "I am different from me".

Meditation isn’t an it (separate thing) which could or would get a me (separate thing) somewhere (separate thing / place which isn’t here, isn’t now). That ‘me’, ‘somewhere’ & ‘getting’ are the activity of thoughts, as is ‘someone assuming’. 

Essentially, you’re hijacking even meditation, by mentally framing it as to get the separate self (“me”) somewhere, while meditation stands to be the allowing of that very activity of thought to settle, allowing reality to be seen as it is, allowing the answer sought herein to be. 

Where exactly are you hoping it’ll get ‘me’ to? 

 

[RMQualtrough]

No such thing... And yet I can assure you when I get my teeth drilled, I'm not sitting there enjoying it.

I wish I could just sit there in ecstasy getting a root canal. That'd be a great skill.