Gaynor aks quite reasonably about whether the discussion in Unit 16 confuses feeling and emotion. If you look at the feeling-related exercises in LOK (especially Ex. 36), you will see that ‘feelings’ are presented very much in the Buddhist sense: there are basically three feelings: positive, negative, and neutral. In Kum Nye, as Gaynor notes, the term ‘feeling’ refers to something much richer and more at the feeling level.<\/p>\n
In light of Gaynor’s question, I see that Unit 16 makes\u00c2\u00a0the jump from emotion to feeling much too quickly. Here is\u00c2\u00a0what I hope is a more considered response: We usually start off at the level of emotion, and this is suggested in Ex. 41 by\u00c2\u00a0use of the example of confusion, which has a strong emotional component to it. But more basic than the emotion is the feeling; Ex. 41 then tries to go still deeper by letting\u00c2\u00a0of positioning. So if you tried to do Ex. 41 at the\u00c2\u00a0level of emotion, it wouldn’t work: you would first have to get to the level of feeling, which is really the level the exercise is aiming at. So yes, as you move from emotion to feeling, you\u00c2\u00a0are\u00c2\u00a0moving closer to the ‘structural’ element of emotionality. You are in effect preparing to do the exercise.\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jack<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gaynor aks quite reasonably about whether the discussion in Unit 16 confuses feeling and emotion. If you look at the feeling-related exercises in LOK (especially Ex. 36), you will see that ‘feelings’ are presented very much in the Buddhist sense: … Continue reading