UnbornTao

The name @Willy Phallicus , poetic!

Fair enough. Still, remember to keep a critical eye.

Those questions are going to open Pandora's box. Again, there's work to be done in the domain of assumptions. There's no action you can take to get there because it's not a destination. It's not like something you do and take steps to arrive at, like writing a book. I think you're asking from a place of "tell me what to believe." Don't get confused by the barrage of fantasy that will be thrown at you. Do it yourself. Contemplate. That's the gist of it. If you want, study Ramana Maharshi. At the very least, it can be inspiring, and it will give your mind some authentic communications to focus on.

The purpose of this journal is to share questions, humor, miscellaneous creative content, and raw reflections on personal empowerment and consciousness. My goals are to deepen my experiential understanding of these topics, improve my communication skills, have fun, and help others see things in a new light.

There's of course a lot of value in noticing and observing, though I'm not sure what you mean by 'indirect' here. This is why our spreading beliefs like "it's invented" doesn't provide us with any real understanding of the matter - unless and until it is seen for what it is, which is the tricky part. Even though you acknowledged the origin above, what follows sounds contradictory - as if you were both at the source and yet treating emotions as a third party outside the willful domain. It happens, and my choice is to deal with it, such as by letting it pass and by not identifying with it. The implication is that they simply occur, or exist outside of you, like the weather. It's not about control but about what you're doing, consciously or not. Think of it like choosing what clothes to wear: picking up a piece and wearing it (regulation) happens because of the first choice. And it's something continuous whenever it's being experienced. This may not be as straightforward as with our own emotions, but the good news is that we aren't at the receiving end of this process but are the main agent, whether we recognize it or not. Great actors work according to this principle. They go beyond mimicking an expression and don't wait around for "exciting" circumstances or stimuli to create enthusiasm. They actually are sad, angry, intrigued, confused, or depressed, depending on what is required of them. At will. That's their job. It's also possible for us to relate to emotions this way, moving one step at a time. For example, try creating enthusiasm now. Anyway, I lost track of the main topic.

It's your job to have it - whatever it turns out to be. For one week, contemplate what listening is and what it requires. Try to set aside your own baggage - especially what you think you already 'know' - and question what this act really is. Other related questions: What is the act of paying attention? Why am I listening (hearing or reading) to this communication - or manipulation? What am I trying to get out of it? How can I step out of my own intellectual world so that I can better hear? Where is this person coming from, and what is their experience? Or simply: What is actually going on in the other person's experience?

You need to do work on dropping assumptions. But "awakening" is not the only focus. Also, there aren't many enlightened people to begin with at all. Maybe Leo, just maybe. You can always question. That's essentially the practice. Ask: "Who am I?" Be open and do that until you get it.

Intuition. You were a bit vague and it wouldn't be the first time an account does something like this. Just checking. Anyway, you can ignore me.

That's the bitch of it. No. You.

I think it'd be better to see them as an interactive, smart dictionary, search engine, or something like that. We're like kids stacking chairs in the kitchen, thinking we're in a space station.

This is not to say "be stupid" or "stop thinking." It's more like this: you can study how to drive a car your whole life, but the experience of actually driving it occurs in a completely different world from that kind of understanding. Or consider the difference between reading and accumulating knowledge about an emotion and actually investigating your experience of it. Something like that. Existence occurs prior to and independent of intellect. Meet it where it's at. A bit like the Zen sentiment.

Humans are primates. I've never understood this natural arrogance that leads us to claim we are not animals, or that we are somehow outside that category.

What do you think generating them means? It's exactly what it sounds like. I'm not proposing ignoring them if they are, in fact, experienced. Just as they are generated, they can also not be generated in the first place - or be changed at will. Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily easy. But where would they come from? Or who do you think they come from? Notice that, relative to an emotion not felt now, there is nothing being generated - obviously. Track their origin and learn to control them like an actor. It's already the case, just unconscious. And they're not necessary, fundamentally.

Not severed - just not generated or considered, irrelevant or secondary - unless someone else is processing them. Severed implies that something inherent or necessary is being removed. Think about what good actors do in their roles. They deliberately create them on the spot as the character demands. The great ones have mastered their emotional dispositions in their craft.

What meaning, value, and use does the truth have? None. And yet it's true.

Sounds good. Share what you find.

Sorry to ask, but is this your first account here?

The claim being made isn't that every cruel, harmful, or violent act is justified - though that might be assumed. Where do you find morality in babies, for example, or in animals? Does it exist as an object? This isn't incompatible with behaving consciously or with love, or with being sensitive to others. It doesn't mean you turn into a ruthless dictator. But I think your concern relates to how everyone might be "corrupted." This simply means that your operating system is yourself and not the truth. "You can't serve two masters." The Jesus thing.

I gave you the short version. Every effect created to affect a condition is a manipulation. And this isn't bad per se, or the same as the socially covert and self-interested, indirect or sneaky manipulation that's seen negatively. It just comprises everything you think and do. Look up the original etymology of the word. You can start it yourself, if you want.

We should all start with a barrel and a lantern.

Got it.

@Joseph Maynor Are you OK? I was joking above.

You create them to move you into action, essentially. Everything you do is a manipulation. Scratching an itch, for example. Anyway, this requires another thread.

I see. We could think of sages as just people - obvious, perhaps, but it keeps them from being idealized too easily, even when their wisdom is recognized. And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

What?