re original post...

interesting stuff

I think practicing the path gives a touch of light to all our reflections and inner actions. That, by this process, illumination dawns.

I would agree that emotion and feeling precedes thought. I think thought is an instrument of emotion.

If you examine the process with your mind, the mind's will wants to make it look like it is in charge. So, the intellect perceives that it is the center of the being and everything flows from it.

But underlying the intellect are other forces.

Which is why, for example, someone can be brilliant, yet utterly savage.

The converse is not true, however...if someone is saintly in their feelings for others, that becomes the entirety of their being.

Which is why, I believe, that the Buddha said that most folks' time on earth is best spent perfecting their morality.

What we can do with the intellect is use it to choose a general course of guidelines. I think the intellect is an excellent tool for some self-control and discipline. But it, itself, has no "spiritual substance" - no love, no beauty, no joy...just more of a function within the being.

Unless, of course, you define the term differently. In that case, what I think people are doing is calling something "mind" which is actually a combination of the mind and the heart.

In therapeutic terms, the cognitive-behavioral folks would say:

"it doesn't matter which came first. You can 'fix' it with action-emotion-thought"

this is opposite of Freud et al..... and it's what you're doing (partly) in the observing stage.... you're acting by watching

or... act right and you might begin to feel that way and if your feelings change your thoughts will follow.

Ah yes, science takes all this time to return to faith's prescription!



www.SilverSunbeam.etsy.com

<<Its knowing the interrelations and how to influence them.>>

Yeah, this is the key, for me. Figuring out the dymanics at play. Unfortunately, science has not much to offer in mapping or characterizing the dynamics..

I think the Buddhist are the ones that I have come across, that have some grip into this. I think I'll look into cognitive sciences but somehow I think those folks ignore emotions since they are still figuring out how the "thought" side of things.

One observation that I have: there seems to me more cultural awareness or emphasis on thoughts rather than emotions. For example, emotional literacy is not valued in kid's education. Also, our language is very coarse when it comes to describing emotions.. I wonder if our language has framed our minds in such a way that we are not aware of the diversity of emotions. I can list less than a page full of emotions, but I could write books on the different thoughts. But I do get a hint of great emotional range by noticing my response to music, there seems to be plenty of bits of emotions that I cannot label....

I don't have a point. Just thinking organically.. perhaps some of my thoughts can trigger something else in someone and they can pick up on them and share...

cheers!

consider for example the fact that our amygdala, where we are aroused by fear (among other things) has an immediate pathway to our sensory systems and motor systems that acts as a shortcut around thought. or that it projects massively to the frontal lobes where key conscious behavioral management components reside, whereas the projection going in the other direction are far fewer and less direct? that testosterone receptors are abundant on the amygdala, the hormone correlative with sexual interest and dominance behavior? or that neuropeptide-Y, a natural opiate that calms the amygdala, is more abundant in military commanders who keep cool under pressure?

how much does consciousness cause behavior? are thoughts really in as much control as they pretend?