andChogyam Trungpa wrote:These interpretations and judgements are negative negativity, watching ourselves being negative and then deciding that the negativity is justified in being there. The negative negativity seems good-natured, so we pat its back, guard it, and justify it.
All I can speculate is that the first statement reflects one's immediate subconscious reaction to negativity, whereas the second represents a contradictory response at the level of self-consciousness.Chogyam Trungpa wrote:Negative negativity refers to the philosophies and rationales we use to justify avoiding our own pain. We would like to pretend that these 'evil' and "foul-smelling" aspects of ourselves and our world are not really there, or that they should not be there, or even that they should be there.
Trungpa later adds:
andChogyam Trungpa wrote:The conceptualised negativity, the negative negativity, must be cut through. It deserves to be murdered on the spot with the sharp blow of basic intelligence-prajnaparamita.
Inspired by this, I have recently completed and let go of the secular (and coincidentally pseudo-Buddhist) philosophy that I developed largely by way of keeping the depression I kept in place for around 25 years in place for the sake of my ego and its self-deceptions, almost simultaneously, and even as the philosophy started to transform into something largely positive. This leaves me with nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. Either way, I believe I face incalculable eons in avici hell, but would at least like to attain a level of understanding that would allow my mind-stream to 'hit the ground running' afterwards. I would justify this partly by referring to later (and apparently stronger) statements in the same talk, which may be relevant to some members, but not all I'd imagine, as they appear to refer to further layers of "negative negativity":Chogyam Trungpa wrote:That kind of intelligence should be killed on the spot, "uncompassionately." This is when compassion should not be idiot compassion. This intellectual energy should be shot, killed, squashed, razed to dust on the spot with one blow.
andChogyam Trungpa wrote:...destroy altogether. This last is necessary only when the negative negativity uses a strong pseudologic or a pseudophilosophical attitude or conceptualisation. It is necessary when there is a notion of some kind that brings a whole succession of other notions, like the layers of an onion, or when one is using logic and ways of justifying oneself so that situations become very heavy and very solid. ... When we begin to play this kind of game, there is no room. Out!
Depending on the correct interpretations of these statements, I take the last statement as confirmation that I and others whose 'issues' can be characterised in the way described by the penultimate statement will not meet a genuine teacher (and thereby hear the dharma) until long after they drop their wrong view - when their body language loses its related tension. If that wrong view has been psuedo-buddhist, then I would imagine it is best to abandon all interest in Buddhism and practice of meditation in this life. Please (Malcolm etc.) let me know if this is the case, and I will try and do so for my own sake and for the sake of others.Chogyam Trungpa wrote:The path of dharma ... is a path on which no one should walk blindly. If anyone does - Out! Such persons should be awakened by being excluded.
Private messages are welcome.