Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 > > This ... feeling arises here. It is only joy or love or whatever > one chooses to call it, after the fact, when, in reflection, it > is " named " as such-and-such a feeling. The naming, the recognition > of " Ahhhh...this is joy " comes afterwards when thought arises. > But, in my experience, there is some feeling actualizes prior to > the cognition of it as a specific feeling. It is for this reason > that it seems to me that feelings may arise in a bodymind mechanism > prior to thought. The *identification* of the feeling (as joy, > grief, love, sadness) is the action of thought - post the > appearance of the feeling. > Hi Andy, Feeling is always a second generation thought, but it is often very difficult to see. Steve D. explains this so much better than I could so I will just leave you with an extract from one his old emails. " You have attached to a thought (1st generation), that thought creates a feeling. You have another thought (2nd generation)that that feeling is named fear. Now you are saying " I feel fear of the unknown " and you believe that it is true. All of it is due to the 1st generation thought that created the first feeling that you labeled " fear " or " anxiety " , with out investigating that first thought. The first thought could be as simple as waking in the morning and becoming " self-aware " , like I am awake. And it goes on from there. " Loving what is, angel, and that would be you, Neo PS. Thought I would steal that last line from before someone else beat me to it! LOL ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 > This ... feeling arises here. It is only joy or love or whatever > one chooses to call it, after the fact, when, in reflection, it > is " named " as such-and-such a feeling. The naming, the recognition > of " Ahhhh...this is joy " comes afterwards when thought arises. > But, in my experience, there is some feeling actualizes prior to > the cognition of it as a specific feeling. It is for this reason > that it seems to me that feelings may arise in a bodymind mechanism > prior to thought. The *identification* of the feeling (as joy, > grief, love, sadness) is the action of thought - post the > appearance of the feeling. > Hi Andy, > > Feeling is always a second generation thought, but it is often > very difficult to see. Steve D. explains this so much better than > I could so I will just leave you with an extract from one his old > emails. Thank you Neo. I read Steve's explanation. What you posed here is a circular argument that " proves " its own validity: if no thought is seen prior to the feeling, then the lack of seeing can NOT (by definition or dogma), mean that there was no thought (which I assert can happen on occasion). It can only mean that the thought wasn't seen (since it *must* be there, you assert). Nothing that either you or Steve offer diminishes the sense experienced here (and described in detail above), that sometimes feelings appear, and afterwards, in the 'naming' of them, they become thoughts. It seems to me that it doesn't matter which order them come in. If the feeling is pleasant, I doubt inquiry will follow; one probably won't seek out the source of the pleasant feeling(s). Their existence is sufficient. If, however, the feeling is unpleasant, then a self-examination may follow, perhaps revealing the thought(s) which are attached to the troubling feeling. This may unravel the entire skein and diminish or eradicate the upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.