spirit or emotions

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

>

> Why label these as " spiritual? " These are all and only " unfulfilled

> desires. " This is a well known subcategory of internal causes of

> disease. I see no good reason to redefine these as " spiritual. " Only

> muddies the waters (which are already muddy enough) and plays to the

> New Age loopty-loos.

>

> Bob

 

this is the crux. these are not spiritual issues at all. they are

emotions. collapsing spirit and emotion is a grave error. emotions

are base unevolved sensations we share with all other mammals.

spirituality is the opposite. it is process of refinement that does

not lead to physical health but to a transcendent state beyond

suffering. the spiritually evolved are often quite physically ill,

just beyond attachment to that. ultimately we all need to attain

this or we are in samsara forever, but the conection between this

transcendent state and physical health is not a common theme in

eastern mysticism. In fact, the physical suffering of seekers is the

common theme. Taoists and yogis who were focused on longevity were

not actually practicing spiritual pursuits, but rather pursuing an

adavcned state of bodymind integration short of nirvana. To some

taoists, this was the end goal, a permanent corporeal body, not

liberation. Such adepts were often criticized as " off the path " by

those who sought the ultimate goal. For the classic example of this,

see patanjali's yoga sutras. For the best discussion of the

confusion between prerational and transrational consciousness, see

Ken Wilber's compilation in Transformations of Consciousness.

 

[Guest guest]

Hi All

 

Great posts, Bob and Todd! I was wondering if you could elaborate on

your views or views of others concerning any possible links between

the two: spiritual mastery and emotional mastery. Are they co-

evolving concepts or completely separate? Can one attain spiritual

mastery without emotional mastery or vice versa? Are they co-

evolving states or completely independent? Is the concept of either

or both completely bunk?

 

Regards, Shanna

 

, " "

wrote:

> , " Bob Flaws "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

>

> >

> > Why label these as " spiritual? " These are all and

only " unfulfilled

> > desires. " This is a well known subcategory of internal causes of

> > disease. I see no good reason to redefine these as " spiritual. "

Only

> > muddies the waters (which are already muddy enough) and plays to

the

> > New Age loopty-loos.

> >

> > Bob

>

> this is the crux. these are not spiritual issues at all. they

are

> emotions. collapsing spirit and emotion is a grave error.

emotions

> are base unevolved sensations we share with all other mammals.

> spirituality is the opposite. it is process of refinement that

does

> not lead to physical health but to a transcendent state beyond

> suffering. the spiritually evolved are often quite physically

ill,

> just beyond attachment to that. ultimately we all need to attain

> this or we are in samsara forever, but the conection between this

> transcendent state and physical health is not a common theme in

> eastern mysticism. In fact, the physical suffering of seekers is

the

> common theme. Taoists and yogis who were focused on longevity were

> not actually practicing spiritual pursuits, but rather pursuing an

> adavcned state of bodymind integration short of nirvana. To some

> taoists, this was the end goal, a permanent corporeal body, not

> liberation. Such adepts were often criticized as " off the path "

by

> those who sought the ultimate goal. For the classic example of

this,

> see patanjali's yoga sutras. For the best discussion of the

> confusion between prerational and transrational consciousness, see

> Ken Wilber's compilation in Transformations of Consciousness.

>

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Having spent 20 years of my life as a hard-core Tibetan Buddhist yogi

both in Asia and the U.S., having read more lives of saints than I can

remember, and having personally met dozens of " realized " gurus from

numerous sects and religions, I totally and completely agree with you.

True spirituality has nothing to do with physical health. In fact, the

conflation of these two is a kind of " spiritual materialism " as

described by Chogyam Trungpa who himself died quite young in bad

health. A few other famous notable examples: St. Francis of Assissi,

Sri Ramakrishna, and the previous Gyalwa Karmapa. I've even met

several " realized " yogis who were certifiably mad despite being

" enlightened. " So enlightenment is not even the same as mental health.

 

In fact, my experience as a past professional religious has led me to

the conclusion that full-on, truly serious attempts at realization or

enlightenment in a single life-time specifically and intentionally

make a person totally neurotic in an attempt to wake the person up to

the fact that they never needed to and never, ever will be able to do

anything that can, in the least, affect anything about their

inner-most essential being. In other words, spirituality is a journey

that does not need to be taken and, when one completes it, one returns

to the exact same place one started from.

 

" When an ordinary person gains wisdom, they become a sage. When the

sage gains realization, they become an ordinary person. "

 

" Before I set out on the Path, trees were trees and mountains were

mountains. Once on the Path, trees were no longer trees and mountains

were no longer mountains. Having completed the Path, trees are once

again trees and mountains are once again mountains. "

 

" Better not to begin. Once begun, better to finish. "

 

" If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him. "

 

Interested readers should also check out Madame Alexandra David-Neel's

description of a yogi who was making himself mentally and physically

ill to the point of near death (through the practice of gChod). I

believe the story is told in her Magic & Mystery in Tibet. When she

suggested to the yogi's guru that maybe he should lighten up on his

apprentice, the guru said that either the student would realize he was

making all this trouble for himself or he would die.

 

Been there, done that.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Shanna,

 

I hate to sound like Ken R. but, what do you mean by spiritual

mastery? What do you mean by emotional mastery? I don't really

understand what you mean by either of those two terms. Mastery means

control over something. So do you mean control over your spirit? If

so, then I think you need to define your use of the word spirit and

the context in which you want to control it. Likewise, do you want to

control your emotions? If so, in what context and why?

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I totally respect your experience with the Buddhist spiritual path

and your personal outcome, and I hope some day to read a fuller account

in the memoirs you've hinted you are writing. I am sure what you

describe as your experience is true, heartfelt, and meant to be shared

in a positive way.

 

I also have come to agree with you that discussions on spirituality

vis a vis Chinese medicine tend to be misleading, and tend to produce

views of Chinese medicine that are not necessarily based in reality,

i.e. " New Age " . I liked your description a few months ago of my

argument about Zhang Xichun's encouragement to meditate and practice qi

gong, i.e. that this is 'what he brings personally to the practice of

Chinese medicine'. You and I also have what we personally bring to the

practice of Chinese medicine. I am an observant Jew who practices

Chinese medicine. I have no interest in proselytizing to patients in

any manner, just to help them in their own lives find the freedom to

cultivate their own health.

 

I also agree that spiritual development or enlightenment is not

necessarily tied to physical health, especially since a life in service

to serving others selflessly may sacrifice one's physical health.

However, since some spiritual paths are householder lifestyles, such as

Jewish practice, maintaining one's health for the sake of longevity and

to nurture one's family and community life is a desirable goal in life.

Physical health as a major or sole focus in life leads to total

egotism, or 'spiritual materialism' as Trungpa described.

 

The goals of Jewish practice are, in some ways, different from

Buddhist practice. I am not going to go into detail on CHA, but let me

just say that different definitions of what is spiritual may account

for some of the difference. Not better or worse, just different. You

go your way, I'll go mine, and with mutual kindness and respect,

perhaps we will meet at the 'other shore'.

 

 

 

On Jul 8, 2004, at 7:28 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>

>

> Having spent 20 years of my life as a hard-core Tibetan Buddhist yogi

> both in Asia and the U.S., having read more lives of saints than I can

> remember, and having personally met dozens of " realized " gurus from

> numerous sects and religions, I totally and completely agree with you.

> True spirituality has nothing to do with physical health. In fact, the

> conflation of these two is a kind of " spiritual materialism " as

> described by Chogyam Trungpa who himself died quite young in bad

> health. A few other famous notable examples: St. Francis of Assissi,

> Sri Ramakrishna, and the previous Gyalwa Karmapa. I've even met

> several " realized " yogis who were certifiably mad despite being

> " enlightened. " So enlightenment is not even the same as mental health.

>

> In fact, my experience as a past professional religious has led me to

> the conclusion that full-on, truly serious attempts at realization or

> enlightenment in a single life-time specifically and intentionally

> make a person totally neurotic in an attempt to wake the person up to

> the fact that they never needed to and never, ever will be able to do

> anything that can, in the least, affect anything about their

> inner-most essential being. In other words, spirituality is a journey

> that does not need to be taken and, when one completes it, one returns

> to the exact same place one started from.

>

> " When an ordinary person gains wisdom, they become a sage. When the

> sage gains realization, they become an ordinary person. "

>

> " Before I set out on the Path, trees were trees and mountains were

> mountains. Once on the Path, trees were no longer trees and mountains

> were no longer mountains. Having completed the Path, trees are once

> again trees and mountains are once again mountains. "

>

> " Better not to begin. Once begun, better to finish. "

>

> " If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him. "

>

> Interested readers should also check out Madame Alexandra David-Neel's

> description of a yogi who was making himself mentally and physically

> ill to the point of near death (through the practice of gChod). I

> believe the story is told in her Magic & Mystery in Tibet. When she

> suggested to the yogi's guru that maybe he should lighten up on his

> apprentice, the guru said that either the student would realize he was

> making all this trouble for himself or he would die.

>

> Been there, done that.

>

> Bob

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob

 

I looked mastery up in the dictionary and found " command or control

through knowledge or skill in a specified field or endeavor " . I

guess I'm refering to things like the difference between

the " emotional mastery " of a two year old and that of a more mature

person who can delay gratification, sublimate needs etc in order to

achieve desired ends with respect to situations involving one's

emotions. It takes a certain level of emotional mastery to quit

eating one's favorite nightly ice cream snack (unfulfilled desire as

you said) in order to achieve the goal of losing weight. (boy, have

I struggled with that one!!) It takes a certain level of emotional

mastery to not beat one's kids if they do something irritating. As

we grow and get " old and wise " it seems that things which were hard

for us to take as younger people, don't seem quite so big a deal

with the advent of age and, perhaps, emotional mastery.

 

As for spiritual mastery, I'll go back to the dictionary difinition

of spirit from my earlier post on the subject: " the intelligent or

immaterial part of man as distinguished from the body " . Mastery, of

course, being the same. So it seems I'm asking does one need to

master the emotions in order to address the mastery of the

intelligent or immaterial aspect and/or vice versa? Must these co-

evolve or is it possible for a spiritual master to not be the master

of his own emotions? And conversely, as we master our emotions, does

our spirit also come under our command by default? Or are these two

completely unrelated and realized independently?

 

Regards, Shanna

 

 

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Shanna,

>

> I hate to sound like Ken R. but, what do you mean by spiritual

> mastery? What do you mean by emotional mastery? I don't really

> understand what you mean by either of those two terms. Mastery

means

> control over something. So do you mean control over your spirit? If

> so, then I think you need to define your use of the word spirit and

> the context in which you want to control it. Likewise, do you want

to

> control your emotions? If so, in what context and why?

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

> Hi Bob

>

> I looked mastery up in the dictionary and found " command or control

> through knowledge or skill in a specified field or endeavor " . I

> guess I'm refering to things like the difference between

> the " emotional mastery " of a two year old and that of a more mature

> person who can delay gratification, sublimate needs etc in order to

> achieve desired ends with respect to situations involving one's

> emotions.

 

Shanna,

 

Chinese medicine teaches that the emotions are the natural subjective

experience of the movement of qi in response to internal and external

stimuli. As long as those emotions are proportional to their stimuli

and they come and go without hindrance or impediment, then they are

neither good or bad. This is exactly the " clouds in the sky " idea of

Tibetan Buddhist Dzog-chen.

 

However, in your response, you seem to be talking more about desires

than emotions. Obviously, some desires are unhealthy and, yes, I would

agree with you that, to be physically healthy, we do have to delay or

even deny gratification of some of our desires. Unfortunately, also

according to standard Chinese medicine, the denial of gratification of

desires (unfulfilled desires) damages the liver, resulting in liver

depression qi stagnation. This is why it is said, " the liver is the

thief of the five viscera and six bowels, " why it is liver depression

which is primarily responsible for initiating the aging process, and

why it is also said, " In adults, blame the liver. " It's a no-win

situation. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hah!

 

As Daoism, Buddhism, and Neo-confucianism all teach, the way out of

this bind is to have as few desires as possible. However, I would also

add that we're all inevitably going to get old, sick, and die. So yet

another desire to relinquish is the one to be healthy and live

forever. This may sound like a catch-22, but then that's why Tibetan

Buddhist yogi's refer to the ironic laughter that typically

accompanies realization as the vajra hassa, the vajra laugh. After

all, human life is a kind of joke. That's why realized people tend to

laugh a lot; they see the irony inherent in the human predicament. (As

the master lay dying, the student asked, " What's the answer? " With his

last breath, the master replied, " What's the question? " )

 

As the previous Dudjom Rinpoche once wrote in a famous set of

Dzog-chen instructions: " If I'm healthy, that's ok. If I'm sick,

that's ok. If I live, that's ok. If I die, that's ok. " There's also

the famous Zen story: A samurai lord passed by a Zen monk on the road.

For some reason, the samurai became cross with the behavior of the

monk and said, " Don't you realize that I can kill you this instant? "

The monk replied, " Don't you realize that I can die this instant? "

 

> As for spiritual mastery, I'll go back to the dictionary difinition

> of spirit from my earlier post on the subject: " the intelligent or

> immaterial part of man as distinguished from the body " . Mastery, of

> course, being the same. So it seems I'm asking does one need to

> master the emotions in order to address the mastery of the

> intelligent or immaterial aspect and/or vice versa? Must these co-

> evolve or is it possible for a spiritual master to not be the master

> of his own emotions? And conversely, as we master our emotions, does

> our spirit also come under our command by default? Or are these two

> completely unrelated and realized independently?

 

So, based on your definition of spirit (which is akin to but not

identical to the standard Chinese medical definition), what you seem

to be talking about is mastery of the mind. My question would then

have to be, to what end? If there's nothing to accomplish, then why

the need to master the mind? Further, in terms of an answer to the

meta-issue implied by your above paragraph, the term " spiritual

master " may be the real problem here. If you are talking about the

achievement of supranormal, so-called psychic abilities, then, yes, I

would say one has to control or master one's mind. But if you're

talking about enlightenment, that's a radical not-doing which means

totally relinquishing attempts at control. There is no controller and

nothing to control. As most yogic traditions teach, the accomplishment

of so-called para- or supranormal abilities is often the by-product of

spiritual practice, but has nothing intrinsically to do with

realization and, most often, is a real impediment to realization.

 

If realization is release, what we humans need release from are

religious ideas that make us neurotic, such as " spiritual mastery. "

That's what the meaning of the koan, " If you meet the Buddha in the

road, kill him, " is all about. Our ideas about Buddhahood, nirvana,

realization, enlightenment, and spirituality are themselves the

problem. Really great realized persons tend to break from their

previous religious traditions (e.g., Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, Martin

Luther, Krishnamurti, etc.). It is exactly those traditions with their

ideas of good and bad, sin and salvation, karma, reincarnation,

heaven, miracles, eternal bliss, etc. that are the problem.

Unfortunately, people being people, the unrealized disciples of

realized persons tend to only create new religions which then set the

whole ball of samsara rolling again. Attachment to such concepts as

Buddhahood, enlightenment, and realization are the worst attachments

of all.

 

Check out the Vajra Heart Sutra (also called the Diamond Heart Sutra).

I'm sure you can find it on-line.

 

Good luck and best wishes,

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> > Hi Bob

> >

> > I looked mastery up in the dictionary and found " command or

control

> > through knowledge or skill in a specified field or endeavor " . I

> > guess I'm refering to things like the difference between

> > the " emotional mastery " of a two year old and that of a more

mature

> > person who can delay gratification, sublimate needs etc in order

to

> > achieve desired ends with respect to situations involving one's

> > emotions.

>

> Shanna,

>

> Chinese medicine teaches that the emotions are the natural

subjective

> experience of the movement of qi in response to internal and

external

> stimuli. As long as those emotions are proportional to their

stimuli

> and they come and go without hindrance or impediment, then they are

> neither good or bad. This is exactly the " clouds in the sky " idea

of

> Tibetan Buddhist Dzog-chen.

 

I guess what I'm talking about then would be that many people's

emotions tend not to be " in proportion " and arise as a result

of " unfulfilled desire " . We tend to go round and round with them

trying to use our mental faculties to unravel " why " instead of

taking the information of our emotion as informative and at face

value ie " that made me mad. What adjustments do I need to make to my

environment, interpretation etc to prevent going round and round? "

Our neurotransmitters wheel out of control and we end up with

neurosis, depression, anxiety etc. Therefore, the person suffers

this emotion long-term and is triggered repeatedly instead of

getting over it once it has served it purpose.

 

 

>

> However, in your response, you seem to be talking more about

desires

> than emotions.

 

Again, are the emotions, specifically the seven affects, our

response to " unfulfilled desires " ?

 

Obviously, some desires are unhealthy and, yes, I would

> agree with you that, to be physically healthy, we do have to delay

or

> even deny gratification of some of our desires. Unfortunately, also

> according to standard Chinese medicine, the denial of

gratification of

> desires (unfulfilled desires) damages the liver, resulting in liver

> depression qi stagnation. This is why it is said, " the liver is the

> thief of the five viscera and six bowels, " why it is liver

depression

> which is primarily responsible for initiating the aging process,

and

> why it is also said, " In adults, blame the liver. " It's a no-win

> situation. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hah!

>

> As Daoism, Buddhism, and Neo-confucianism all teach, the way out of

> this bind is to have as few desires as possible.

 

How to " have as few desires as possible " without running into the

problem of " unfulfilled desires " ?

 

However, I would also

> add that we're all inevitably going to get old, sick, and die. So

yet

> another desire to relinquish is the one to be healthy and live

> forever.

 

Yes, but how does this stack up against our mission to alleviate our

own and our patient's suffering? Certainly, there is a time to

suffer and a time to die. But maybe we can moderate and change at

least some of this with our medicine, however we define that io we

can't change that we were born and that we must die but perhaps we

can find ways to make the process more meaningful and comfortable.

 

 

This may sound like a catch-22, but then that's why Tibetan

> Buddhist yogi's refer to the ironic laughter that typically

> accompanies realization as the vajra hassa, the vajra laugh. After

> all, human life is a kind of joke. That's why realized people tend

to

> laugh a lot; they see the irony inherent in the human predicament.

(As

> the master lay dying, the student asked, " What's the answer? " With

his

> last breath, the master replied, " What's the question? " )

 

I love this!!!

 

 

>

> As the previous Dudjom Rinpoche once wrote in a famous set of

> Dzog-chen instructions: " If I'm healthy, that's ok. If I'm sick,

> that's ok. If I live, that's ok. If I die, that's ok. " There's also

> the famous Zen story: A samurai lord passed by a Zen monk on the

road.

> For some reason, the samurai became cross with the behavior of the

> monk and said, " Don't you realize that I can kill you this

instant? "

> The monk replied, " Don't you realize that I can die this instant? "

 

Obviously, this monk has attained the ability to detach from his

desires. How to do this???

 

 

>

> > As for spiritual mastery, I'll go back to the dictionary

difinition

> > of spirit from my earlier post on the subject: " the intelligent

or

> > immaterial part of man as distinguished from the body " . Mastery,

of

> > course, being the same. So it seems I'm asking does one need to

> > master the emotions in order to address the mastery of the

> > intelligent or immaterial aspect and/or vice versa? Must these

co-

> > evolve or is it possible for a spiritual master to not be the

master

> > of his own emotions? And conversely, as we master our emotions,

does

> > our spirit also come under our command by default? Or are these

two

> > completely unrelated and realized independently?

>

> So, based on your definition of spirit (which is akin to but not

> identical to the standard Chinese medical definition), what you

seem

> to be talking about is mastery of the mind. My question would then

> have to be, to what end? If there's nothing to accomplish, then why

> the need to master the mind?

 

But didn't the monk above have mental mastery? Is it not possible?

Is it in fact a myth? Is not the study and cultivation of our

knowledge of a form of " mastery of the mind " ?

 

Further, in terms of an answer to the

> meta-issue implied by your above paragraph, the term " spiritual

> master " may be the real problem here. If you are talking about the

> achievement of supranormal, so-called psychic abilities, then,

yes, I

> would say one has to control or master one's mind. But if you're

> talking about enlightenment, that's a radical not-doing which means

> totally relinquishing attempts at control. There is no controller

and

> nothing to control. As most yogic traditions teach, the

accomplishment

> of so-called para- or supranormal abilities is often the by-

product of

> spiritual practice, but has nothing intrinsically to do with

> realization and, most often, is a real impediment to realization.

 

I agree with you here. I'm more interested in the least of the

practices, Tonglin, than the extremely complex ones, none of which I

can even name. Nor am I interested in retreating to a cave to search

for answers. I think most patients would fall in this category as

well.

 

>

> If realization is release, what we humans need release from are

> religious ideas that make us neurotic, such as " spiritual mastery. "

> That's what the meaning of the koan, " If you meet the Buddha in the

> road, kill him, " is all about. Our ideas about Buddhahood, nirvana,

> realization, enlightenment, and spirituality are themselves the

> problem. Really great realized persons tend to break from their

> previous religious traditions (e.g., Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha,

Martin

> Luther, Krishnamurti, etc.). It is exactly those traditions with

their

> ideas of good and bad, sin and salvation, karma, reincarnation,

> heaven, miracles, eternal bliss, etc. that are the problem.

> Unfortunately, people being people, the unrealized disciples of

> realized persons tend to only create new religions which then set

the

> whole ball of samsara rolling again. Attachment to such concepts as

> Buddhahood, enlightenment, and realization are the worst

attachments

> of all.

 

Here, Here!!! I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Thanks for your well-considered reply and would love to hear further

opinions from you on this.

>

> Check out the Vajra Heart Sutra (also called the Diamond Heart

Sutra).

> I'm sure you can find it on-line.

 

I'll check this if I get the time though, as I said (and you said),

It's hard for me to go deeply into sectarian materials as I find the

deeper one goes, the deeper the sh**!!

 

Respectfully and in admiration,

Shanna

>

> Good luck and best wishes,

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Interesting reading you have supplied us in the last few days.

Although you have been on this journey longer than I, I do have a

comment/ question though.

First, I respect your view that it is all BS so don't even bother, and

I do see where you are coming from, but what about all the

'enlightened' teachers that do not view it this way. Obviously if

they thought like you, then there would be none of these people edging

everyone else along. IS it possible that there are two valid

viewpoints / awarenesses. I.e. Your experience has lead you full

circle to the same place, where someone else might get taken to a

whole different level that they stay at and want to help others get to

that level. I am sure most of those people would agree that where

they are at (now), is not where what they imagined (it would be like)

when they set out on there journey. But obviously many are incredibly

happy with this state (as simple as it really may be) and really try

to help others along. I am unsure what exactly I am saying, and I am

sure someone else could articulate this better. But maybe you just

had a dead-end run...? Just curious what you thought about that?

 

Warm regards,

 

-