There is a precedent in cognitive science for drawing a distinction between feelings and emotions. Antonio Damasio makes a lot of this distinction. His theory confuses the hell out of me and it looks like he's using the words in ways other than their standard meaning, and his theory differs sharply from what Hue is saying, but here's a page explaining Damasio's take www.scaruffi.com/mind/damasio3.html

Hue, thank you for your thoughtful response :-)

Hue wrote "The word "vs" is not the same as when you play Mortal Kombat and fight somone. I used it to signify a comparison between differnces, as if you would say "How is driving a Jeep vs (versus) driving a sports car"

On your Buddhist question. Buddhism doesn't seek to dispel duality, it seeks to dispel a sense of inherent self by showing how things are made up of parts. My breaking feelings and emotions up into pieces is Buddhist in function and application."

Interesting, I'm still not sure how comparing really helps one to more deeply know one's emotions/feelings. Or why comparing and segregating is useful... (or competing, it's still a competition and value judgment in your jeep vs sports car example *shrug*). Not saying it's not working for you or couldn't be effective! I'm just saying this doesn't seem necessary, or accurate to me.

No, I'm not holding onto any resentment for you not answering questions you've asked yourself, or for inviting me to be your friend and then seemingly not being interested if it involved getting to know each other. I didn't take this personally or think it was intended to be personal, I just figured that you're probably another guru looking for followers not a human being looking to engage with other humans (there seem to be quite a few of those on tribe *shrug*). It's from observing your pattern of behavior, not one incident of not answering a question, that I've come to wonder if perhaps you have another intent than just being friendly and sharing here (sharing, of course, involves giving *and* taking :-)

So, no resentment just curiosity about your intent. I'm sorry if this conversation has taken such a big amount of time and energy for you! On my side, this is simple inter-human communication which doesn't take a great deal of time or energy. While I do value both my time and energy, I also make a spending it freely with other human beings. I can't imagine anything less joyful (just a personal perspective obviously! :-) than being miserly with my time and energy - after all, I've found both time and energy expand greatly when one is not counting them like golden pennies that one must hoard!

Hue - Just to be clear about where I'm coming from, I don't call myself a Buddhist or consider myself Buddhist. I'm interested in Buddhist writings and concepts since they're one more part of the pool of human knowledge, and I've found that the writings of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn very often reflect values and understandings I've arrived at though living (we all enjoy having our ideas and beliefs affirmed, I'm human like that ;-). I like to swim, float and dive deep in the pool of knowledge with other swimmers :-) That said, having discussed Buddhism with many different people from many different places and traditions, there seem to be many different forms of Buddhism. In fact, as someone who has enjoyed and benefited from the writings of many Buddhist thinkers but who isn't attached to and doesn't identify as Buddhist, quite often Buddhism seems remarkably the same as Christianity and Islam as a religion with it's competing schisms and focus on institutions and right to power (lineage), as well as it's more peace loving and compassionate aspects. Humans being humans really :-)

It's interesting, I've had other Buddhists tell me just the opposite of what you say is Buddhist so it seems there are a number of different Buddhist perspectives on this subject. I'm not even proposing one is right and the other is wrong (that's your battle if you feel the need to assert your interpretation) - I just find it interesting. People interest me because of who they are, what they think and feel, and how that's expressed, not what they call themselves. Labels may give something to the ego to cling to and to construct an identity around (and like comparing, identity creation is an integral function of our mind), and are certainly very handy when sorting and dividing, but it seems to me that ultimately they usually get in the way of growth since they are inherently static and we are not.

Anyway, to get back to the original idea that it is useful to designate feelings and emotions as meaning different things. I can see the utility in that - like designating feelings/emotions and thoughts as being separate "things". (But why not use the simpler, less innately confusing, and just as "accurate" designation of "feeling" and "expression of feeling"?) Of course, thinking and feeling are dynamic processes that are integrally intertwined, not "things" or objects, so these artificial divisions we impose aren't reflective of the reality of the process. That said, since this kind of abstraction can be very difficult for people to both understand and accept, I can understand the utility of the approach you're taking and have used a similar one with clients where I speak about mind and body as separate and objects when clearly they're not (the mind is not an object but a phenomena or the byproduct of a process). That said, I do consider actual cognitive science to be more relevant in this tribe, and it important to discuss the actual science behind ideas being presented here. It was in this spirit that I brought up recent studies that seem to indicate that our actions/expressions are signaled in the brain before we arrive at the point in time where we're conscious of "choosing" and can intercede/choose regarding the action already signaled.

Back to the energy and time thing again. I've also found that anything worth doing demands time and energy, and that what we are willing to give of ourselves always returns if we are open to receiving. Giving without an opening to receive as well soon becomes a one way act that has nothing to do with sharing, it quickly become imposing and an act of will and ego! Sometimes it is interesting to ponder these things and be clear on our intent, that way we can align those feelings and emotions, and those feelings and thoughts, and we soon see that what we like to think of as separate objects are actually dynamic processes. You know, like you and I. And that trying to grasp and box a process is like trying to put a river in a box. You can scoop out as many buckets as you like, but is it really still a river that you have captured in your bucket? :-)