We live in a time when feelings, or emotive responses, have been elevated to the first tier of what we value and call “important.” This has not always been the case. Previous generations have ascribed this level of importance to duty, religious observance, personal fidelity, or family. Traditionally, the feeling or emotion has been something to overcome, supress, or release on the head of another person. Even recently, the emotion or display thereof was seen as a symptom of a disorder or imbalance. In society such a display was considered “artistic” or an alarming lack of self-control. Now, and before we can look at this with some freshness, we must agree to a few things. There will be a counter-argument for everything I say here; at some level it is untrue (unhelpful) and at another point of perception, resonant (helpful). It is always best to simply allow for those things that are resonant at the moment (these are the agreements with Knowing) and disregard the intellectual parsing and judgement (the mind will always find content it can use to discount anything). Feelings are neither good nor bad; desirable nor undesirable. They arise. And unless you sit watching Steel Magnolias with a bottle of wine, they mostly arise in a seemingly unbidden manner. The thing is, though they may feel like a spontaneous response to stimuli, in fact, they are not. How often have we heard statements such as “You make me sad”, or “That makes me happy”, or “You make me angry”. This idea is disempowering, unexamined, and always untrue. The science of this is simple: emotions are chemical responses to thought - period. I have a thought and belief that you should act in a particular manner, and you do not, I become sad/angry/frustrated/etc. First there is the thought, then the belief around that thought, then the chemistry is released that accompanies that, and then we have an emotive reaction which we are taught to name. Now, since most of our thoughts, and beliefs around them, are automatic and unexamined, we are unaware of this chain of events unfolding. It feels like something appearing in our field of consciousness and a “natural” reaction. The “naturalness” (or justified feeling) of our reaction is re-enforced by social agreement. If you have ever visited a psychologist or school counsellor, you have probably been asked to look at a page of emoticons and properly identify the “feeling”. In this way, we are not only encouraged in “correct” interpretation of emotive sensation, but also in the “correctness” of that chemical reaction. The fact remains that emotions are nothing more than a chemical reaction to our thoughts and beliefs around them. Emotions, once understood in this way, can be very useful in drawing our attention to our unexamined thoughts and beliefs around them. “I am getting really pissed off here – interesting! What are the thoughts and the beliefs I have around that that are creating this chemical response?” This is helpful. The deification of the “feelings” person, however benign those “feelings” may seem, is simply the affirmation of automated ignorance. Yesterday, I spoke, at length, with a person who is very “hurt” and “angry” with someone who has ended a relationship with them. Asked for advice, I suggested that she replace anger with curiosity: that is to say, to become interested in the unexamined thoughts and belief systems that lay beneath these strong feelings. (Now for those of you who are always looking for something to jump on, I get that once the chemical reaction is underway, it may be helpful to ride it out, at least in responsible manner; beat the pillow and cry vs. take your car and run him down. It is, also, somewhat true that in keeping in your conscious thought the nature of emotion, we are less susceptible to it’s the full degree of its subsuming insistence.) There is a saying in Christian scripture that “God’s purpose is never served by man’s anger” (that includes women’s anger as well!). It is not, as we so often justify, a “reasonable” response to events beyond our control, but rather an inevitable response to our beliefs and thoughts about how life should be, instead of a response to the “suchness” (and might I add Perfection?) of the moment. Emotions are invitations to curiosity. In the case of the woman angry at the “actions” of the man she had had an “investment” in; she might become interested in her emotional history. Is this a situation and response that she is creating over and over? There may be some “core” or foundational assumptions at play. If this situation, and response to it, is a chronic or known one, it may be prudent to exclude any consideration of the “other” person. It is a given that you are doing this to yourself, choosing stand-ins for the role, in a hope of revealing your assumptive self to the light of understanding. What are the thoughts of what should have been? What do those reveal to yourself about what you believe? And what do those “should” tell you about your relationship to life in general? Are you present for the suchness, the absolute abundant and perfect Now, or are you caught up in an abstract dream of some future moment? And what do you belief about you? Are you willing to cease to position yourself against others and simply enter self-examination? As we can see, the depth and value of the possibilities are endless. Let our emotions be of true value. Allow them. Recognize them. Do not rationalize or deify them. Become curious. Allow them to lead you to your unexamined nature. For, surely it is written, “As a man (sic) thinks, so is he (sic) also!” -avtar- Eden Atenas Costa Rica avtarwriter
Posted on: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:18:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015