Oops i forgot to feel good first again

[henryyyyyyyyyy]

I think a lot of this “get back to feeling good first” comes back to this sentence, from the ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article:

“…any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway”

With this footnote attached:

"[Richard]: What the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago would do is first get back to feeling good and then, and only then, suss out where, when, how, why – and what for – feeling bad happened as experience had shown ‘him’ that it was counter-productive to do otherwise.

What ‘he’ always did however, as it was often tempting to just get on with life then, was to examine what it was all about within half-an-hour of getting back to feeling good (while the memory was still fresh) even if it meant sometimes falling back into feeling bad by doing so … else it would crop up again sooner or later.

Nothing, but nothing, can be swept under the carpet."

In addition, while I was in Ballina Richard corrected me by, to my memory, emphasizing getting back to feeling good before doing any investigation. Since that time I’ve been repeating that advice many times on this forum. I will acknowledge that my memory is flawed and that some of the nuance of his advice may have been lost with time, unfortunately there is no written record of that conversation to go back to.

What it seems to me is, there are two forms of investigation.

One of them is direct observation of the emotion/self, itself, happening, firsthand. Which is what you refer to by

@srid

Attentiveness is the observance of the basic nature of each arising feeling; it is observing all the inner world – emotional, passionate and calentural – which is whatever is presently taking place in the affective faculty. Attentiveness is seeing how any feeling makes ‘me’ tick – and how ‘I’ react to it – with the perspicacity of seeing how it affects others as well. In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other … and such attentiveness is the ending of its grip. Please note that last point: in attentiveness, there is an observance of the ‘reality’ within, and such attention is the end of its embrace … finish.

(emphases mine)

Which attentive observation can only happen in real-time, and thus, by definition, while the emotion is happening - not while feeling good.

And the other form is analysis, which is best done while feeling good, per:

“any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much”

and “RESPONDENT: …should I get back to feeling good and then figure out why I last felt less-than-good? RICHARD: If you have a tendency towards being an emotional/ passional-type person then … yes.”)

I’d argue that both are useful and at some stage necessary to become free, though one or the other would be useful as a starting point, depending on one’s predilection (as Richard advises)

[FrankN]

@henryyyyyyyyyy

was to examine what it was all about within half-an-hour of getting back to feeling good (while the memory was still fresh) even if it meant sometimes falling back into feeling bad by doing so

Wonerful henryyyyyyyy

[Kiman]

@claudiu

I suspect that it ‘works’ when done out of necessity (as described above), and doesn’t work when done as an end in-and-of-itself.

Could you give an example of a situation where you investigated for reasons other than when it’s necessary? It looks paradoxical to me to do for any other reason.