simple...

[David Quinn]

Nat,

I'd concede that Sapius has a point. He makes an important distinction that I didn't, but I don't think it effects my usage of the term "ignorant." I'd agree that in order to ignore, one has to know what they are ignoring. But this only reinforces my point that "ignorant" is not the proper term for those who don't know there is anything to ignore.

One can try to ignore something that one doesn't really understand, if one suspects that not ignoring it will lead to danger.

For example, a policeman might come across evidence that points to his superiors being corrupt. If he is scared enough, he might try to block this evidence out of his mind, knowing that if he starts pursuing the matter further it could lead to the end of his career and possibly the end of his life. So here is an example of a person ignoring an area of knowledge that he is doesn't really understand, other than the fact that it represents danger.

Similarly, a philosophical person might try to ignore the deluded nature of love and set up mental blocks against investigating the matter further, because he fears the consequences of bringing the deluded nature of love into greater clarity and focus.

Needless to say, this sort of ignoring is very widespread in our society.

-

[Unidian]

David,

Kevin and I discussed the "deluded nature of love" on the podcast, as you might recall. We agreed that while many elements of ordinary romantic love are problematic, there is a more universal form of love which need not involve the typical ego pitfalls.

I think you are mistaking schizoid personality disorder for philosophy again. You seem to have constructed a framework of teachings based on disordered thinking. Of course, you'll probably respond that having wisdom results in a personality disorder diagnosis. I disagree with that. While the two are often found in the same individual simply because ordinary people are not strongly motivated to seek out unusual ideas, I think that one has to avoid viewing disordered thinking as identical to wise thinking, and remain vigilant about distinguishing between the two.

You seem unable or unwilling to do this, and as a result, you've created an entire quasi-religion out of SPD.

[David Quinn]

Nat,

Kevin and I discussed the "deluded nature of love" on the podcast, as you might recall. We agreed that while many elements of ordinary romantic love are problematic, there is a more universal form of love which need not involve the typical ego pitfalls.

I'm not sure that you and Kevin have the same conception of universal love in mind.

Is this "universal form of love" of yours involve emotion in any way? Does it involve any particular object of affection?

I think you are mistaking schizoid personality disorder for philosophy again. You seem to have constructed a framework of teachings based on disordered thinking. Of course, you'll probably respond that having wisdom results in a personality disorder diagnosis. I disagree with that. While the two are often found in the same individual simply because ordinary people are not strongly motivated to seek out unusual ideas, I think that one has to avoid viewing disordered thinking as identical to wise thinking, and remain vigilant about distinguishing between the two.

Dismissing my views on love as "disordered thinking" is merely your way of avoiding examining the issue properly. It's a bit like how the medieval Christians tried to dismiss Galileo as a "heathen" in order to avoid facing what he was saying.

-

[Unidian]

David,

I'm not sure that you and Kevin have the same conception of universal love in mind.

No, probably not.

Is this "universal form of love" of yours involve emotion in any way? Does it involve any particular object of affection?

It involves a recognition of shared identity. In principle, it encompasses all things, but because all things are not directly present in our daily lives, it is expressed toward those things we do encounter. It involves redirecting natural emotional impulses in an insightful way.

Dismissing my views on love as "disordered thinking" is merely your way of avoiding examining the issue properly. It's a bit like how the medieval Christians tried to dismiss Galileo as a "heathen" in order to avoid facing what he was saying.

You should be well aware of how little weight this response carries. Every unconventional thinker who thinks he has "all the answers" says this almost reflexively. "They misunderstood Einstein [or whoever] and they misunderstand me. They don't want to see the truth!"

This response is virtually a cliche in Internet discussions.

[David Quinn]

Nat,

DQ: Is this "universal form of love" of yours involve emotion in any way? Does it involve any particular object of affection?

Nat: It involves a recognition of shared identity. In principle, it encompasses all things, but because all things are not directly present in our daily lives, it is expressed toward those things we do encounter. It involves redirecting natural emotional impulses in an insightful way.

The torture and rape of a child is a "thing" within the universe. Does a person with "universal love" recognize a shared identity with this thing, in the same way that he recognizes a shared identity with other things? Does he experience the same emotional love to this thing as does to other things? Or is he picky and choosey with his love?

DQ: Dismissing my views on love as "disordered thinking" is merely your way of avoiding examining the issue properly. It's a bit like how the medieval Christians tried to dismiss Galileo as a "heathen" in order to avoid facing what he was saying.

Nat: You should be well aware of how little weight this response carries. Every unconventional thinker who thinks he has "all the answers" says this almost reflexively. "They misunderstood Einstein [or whoever] and they misunderstand me. They don't want to see the truth!"

This response is virtually a cliche in Internet discussions.

One cliche deserves another.

-

[Unidian]

David,

The torture and rape of a child is a "thing" within the universe. Does a person with "universal love" recognize a shared identity with this thing, in the same way that he recognizes a shared identity with other things? Does he experience the same emotional love to this thing as does to other things? Or is he picky and choosey with his love?

Preferences are instilled by both evolution and individual thought. A shared identity with all things is the starting place from which a non-egotistical form of love can arise. This does not negate the reality of preferences instilled by either evolution or reason. It is the opposite of ordinary love, where all things are treated with indifference or contempt until a few are eventually selected for compassion. In the approach I am proposing, all things are initially treated with compassion until a few are eventually selected for indifference or contempt. In other words, while the reality of preferences is recognized, everything gets the benefit of the doubt as long as it can reasonably be given.

I am opposed to things such as the example you mentioned, for what I consider to be highly valid reasons. This does not negate love as a general policy. As they say, the exception only serves to prove the rule. Furthermore, it could easily be argued that love (in the form of compassion) is what motivates us to oppose such things in the first place.

One cliche deserves another.

But pointing out your SPD and its role in your thinking is not a cliche, because you actually have the condition, as verified by experts. Denial is not what one would expect from a "sage."

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David, Nat, Kevin, and Dan specifically, as well as anyone else who wants to reply,

What do you think of the accuracy and/or level of insightfulness in this article on the Buddha and love?

Do you believe that full enlightenment includes a love of all, therefore a love of the complete Ultimate Reality? What kind of loves and how much of each do you have? (Other than Kevin and Nat who have already responded) do you believe, as Nat has suggested, that practicing a localized version of universal love without attachment (as Kevin suggested) or need for another being to make one feel complete (as both suggested), could help foster the growth of universal love (as Nat suggested)?

David asked:

The torture and rape of a child is a "thing" within the universe. Does a person with "universal love" recognize a shared identity with this thing, in the same way that he recognizes a shared identity with other things? Does he experience the same emotional love to this thing as does to other things? Or is he picky and choosey with his love?

How would you answer those? I would say that a person with universal love would recognize a shared identity with that, as with consciousness, unconsciousness, erotic love, hatred, etc. - but the universal love - or more accurately Universal love - would wish to promote the well-being of the overall universe. Torture, rape, mugging, etc. do not promote well-being, so one with universal love would discourage such behaviors in the overall better interest. I would even say that a conscious enough person could have romantic love for another without having the disparaging consequences - such as jealousy, inappropriate allocation of priorities, swayed beliefs, increased criticality of the focus of such love, self-dissatisfaction, etc. that are common side effects experienced by less conscious individuals - but that would have to be a very highly conscious individual to accomplish that feat. A highly conscious person with universal love would be able to differentiate what specific aspects of what behaviors (including feelings) promoted well-being for the greatest good of as much of the overall as possible, and would stay within those bounds of what is for the best. For some, the best that they can do is to shut off emotions entirely - but for stronger others, they could handle the emotions and use them wisely for beneficial purposes. The wisdom is needed to know what would or would not be beneficial, and the strength would have to be strong enough to do the beneficial thing, whether at minimum through the tide of emotion or at best by directing the tide of emotion to be of benefit.
.

[Dan Rowden]

David, Nat, Kevin, and Dan specifically, as well as anyone else who wants to reply,

What do you think of the accuracy and/or level of insightfulness in this article on the Buddha and love?

I didn't get very far into that article. Compassion and universal love are not emotions. Kevin wrote a very good post to Genius-l years ago. It's probably fitting that I offer it again here:

Agape is Infinite Love, which is fundamentally different in kind to all other forms of love, which are finite in nature.

There a number of different kinds of love which are commonly mistaken for agape, or selfless love:

1. Motherly love.

This kind of love is in fact finite in nature because it is limited to those people the mother feels motherly towards - and these few may exclude those most in need, or most deserving of her love. This kind of love is only selfless in the sense that women generally have not evolved to the stage of having a self - a fact which prevents them from becoming selfless (in the spiritual sense of transcending or growing beyond the self).

2. Poetic or romantic love.

I have in mind the kind of deeply passionate love expressed in some love poems which speak to a relatively profound yearning for something such as the "Woman" principle - a yearning which is relatively constant, or seemingly "infinite". Yet this kind of love is also finite, because it seeks a particular thing, and is directed towards that thing, and necessarily away from all else.

3. Love of those close to one.

Such as loving one's spouse, or friends, or pets, or plants. This kind of attachment, or appreciation, usually happens purely through familiarity. One's environment tends to grow on one, and to interpenetrate one. This kind of love feels infinite because it is all around one, but it too is truly finite, because it does not extend to those things outside of one's immediate environment, and if there is a radical change in one's local environment (such as the death of every person one has ever met) then there is grief.

Agape is different to all those mentioned because it is not directed towards any particular thing. And it is not experienced as joy, as all other loves are, because it comes out of Joy - which is to say that it comes out of an understanding/experience of Reality. Agape is really an understanding - an understanding of all things - and is hence identical to Wisdom and Compassion. It is not a desire, or a need, or a feeling towards some particular thing or concept. It is equal towards literally all things. It doesn't perceive more beauty in one place than in any other. Such a love is exactly the same "towards" one's enemy as it is "towards" one's friend. Both are understood the same, and are experienced the same. It sees life and death as the same. But
it understands all these things for the right reasons. It is a correct understanding.

I'll return to the rest of Elizabeth's post as it requires a rather substantial and substantive response.

Dan Rowden

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

2. Poetic or romantic love.

I have in mind the kind of deeply passionate love expressed in some love poems which speak to a relatively profound yearning for something such as the "Woman" principle - a yearning which is relatively constant, or seemingly "infinite". Yet this kind of love is also finite, because it seeks a particular thing, and is directed towards that thing, and necessarily away from all else.

Let me clarify that this is not the romantic love I was referring to, and reiterate:

I would even say that a conscious enough person could have romantic love for another without having the disparaging consequences - such as jealousy, inappropriate allocation of priorities, swayed beliefs, increased criticality of the focus of such love, self-dissatisfaction, etc. that are common side effects experienced by less conscious individuals

In order to accomplish this, the love could not be the kind of bottomless pit love that Kevin described as romantic love. That "love" would be of the hungry ghost realm, and not have the kind of purity I had in mind.
.

[clyde]

Elizabeth;

I took your question and generalized it to be: Do enlightened human beings feel emotions?

If one accepts, as I do, that emotions are causal and have a physical component (body chemistry, hormones, neural connections, etc.), then the answer is “yes”, enlightened human beings still experience the emotions that arise from those causes and conditions.

Of course, if you believe that enlightened human beings’ physical component is changed so that those conditions do not arise or you believe that enlightened beings are not subject to cause-effect, then the answer is “no”.

I do believe that, in general, enlightened human beings are less overwhelmed by such experiences and that their conduct produces fewer and less intense conditions that give rise to emotions.

clyde

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Clyde,

Although that is some good reasoning on causality and definitions, your generalization ended up so broad that it missed what I was hoping people would aim for.

I guess I could shorten it to the following:

If an enlightened person feels universal love, can a conscious person use other kinds of love as a path to awaken universal love?
.

[clyde]

Elizabeth;

Sorry. I see that your question was about paths.

Yes, if an enlightened person feels universal love, then a conscious person can use other kinds of love as a path to awaken universal love. In fact, a truly conscious person can use any experience to attain enlightenment and, since (as stated in your question) an enlightened person feels universal love, will feel universal love.

clyde

[David Quinn]

Nat,

DQ: The torture and rape of a child is a "thing" within the universe. Does a person with "universal love" recognize a shared identity with this thing, in the same way that he recognizes a shared identity with other things? Does he experience the same emotional love to this thing as does to other things? Or is he picky and choosey with his love?

Preferences are instilled by both evolution and individual thought. A shared identity with all things is the starting place from which a non-egotistical form of love can arise. This does not negate the reality of preferences instilled by either evolution or reason. It is the opposite of ordinary love, where all things are treated with indifference or contempt until a few are eventually selected for compassion. In the approach I am proposing, all things are initially treated with compassion until a few are eventually selected for indifference or contempt. In other words, while the reality of preferences is recognized, everything gets the benefit of the doubt as long as it can reasonably be given.

What you're describing here isn't universal love, which is defined as "an unconditional love for all things". It is merely a form of selfishness based on your own preferences and egotistical desires.

Your point about evolution isn't very convincing. We have evolved the ability to break free of our genetic programming. For example, a person can break free of his genetically inherited will to live and commit suicide, or starve himself to death for the sake of an ideal. Or he can choose not to have children, thereby thwarting his genetic programming which urges him to pass on his genes.

So either a person is truly committed to the ideal of universal love and endeavours to beak his conditioning so much that he can love all things, without exception, unconditionally, or else he can wimp out and settle for ordinary selfishness and try to pretend to himself and others that he is engaging in love.

I am opposed to things such as the example you mentioned, for what I consider to be highly valid reasons.

Then you are opposed to universal love.

DQ: One cliche deserves another.

Nat: But pointing out your SPD and its role in your thinking is not a cliche, because you actually have the condition, as verified by experts. Denial is not what one would expect from a "sage."

The only thing that the "experts" have verified is that my personality and thinking is different from the norm. The truthfulness or otherwise of my thinking was not something they assessed.

-

[Jason]

Nat,

The only thing that the "experts" have verified is that my personality and thinking is different from the norm. The truthfulness or otherwise of my thinking was not something they assessed.

Exactly. Nat, I don't know whether you are engaging in this argument in an honest attempt to dispute David's views, or you are using this as a cynical tactic to try to discredit David with almost completely irrelevant points.

Psychiatry can be very much at odds with serious philosophy, it is fundamentally flawed as regards serious philosophical practice and development, let's look at some of its basic tenents. From Wikipedia:

Psychiatry: Psychiatry is a medical specialty dealing with the prevention, assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of the mind and mental illness. Its primary goal is the relief of mental suffering associated with symptoms of disorder and improvement of mental well-being.

It starts out with the premise that mental suffering is the primary thing to be reduced or eliminated. If removing mental suffering is a primary goal there can be be no deep questioning of anything - the end of philosophy as we know it.

Mental Illness: A mental illness or mental disorder refers to one of many mental health conditions characterized by distress, impaired cognitive functioning, atypical behavior and/or maladaptive behavior.

Atypical behaviour, this is defining the "average" human as the non-disordered. It is essentially defining mental wellness as a democratic process. I think you'd agree that making decisions based on the averaged views of a society is a pretty crummy way to go about things. Again, this is at at odds with serious philosophy(if not just general life choices) as far as I am concerned.

Then we have maladaptive behaviour. A variation on atypical behaviour, this is suggesting that adapting to fit social and cultural expectations is mental wellness. If you're in Nazi Germany, and the majority agree with treating Jews poorly, and you don't and you suffer for it, it could be argued that you're maladapted and mentally ill. It should be obvious what the problems are here.

The comparison that David gave to Galileo is completely valid as regards these two points.

Now let's look at David's specific diagnosis:

Schizoid Personality Disorder: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a cluster A personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, and emotional coldness.

Very much just a rehash of the previous, defined as a disorder based on it being a deviation from the norms and expectations of the majority in our particular culture at this particular date.

-

Despite the problems I have with psychiatry as concerns philosophy and the seeking of truth(and some other problems I see in it for different reasons), I don't completely write it off. If reducing psychological suffering is what is desired, then psychiatry may be a good tool to help achieve this.

The only sensible argument I can imagine coming out of all this, is if it could be shown that David's basic psychological characteristics, which were not based on truth or valid arguments, were responsible for his philosophical beliefs, eg he suggests avoiding relationships simply because of his temperment not because this was in accordance with truth.

However, in general I think it's much better to focus on proving or disproving the actual arguments and philosophical concepts a person proposes. Even if one were to prove that certain mental characteristics were directly responsible for a person choosing certain philosophical views, and not based on truth as such, that still wouldn't necessarily mean the views were wrong, just that they were not arrived at by what you may consider to be valid means or reasons.

[edit: slight rewording and spelling alterations]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I agree with Jason.

Many of the personality disorders are nothing of the kind, they are nothing more than defined conditions, a description of effects in behavior or brain chemistry. What we call normal in this day and age is also a complex condition, which just works for the social order. The category 'illness' only arises when it becomes a trouble. But a trouble for whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka

The official Soviet psychiatric science came up with the definition of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia (вялотекущая шизофрения), a special form of the illness that supposedly affects only the person's social behavior, with no trace on other traits: "most frequently, ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure," according to the Moscow Serbsky Institute professors (a quote [3] from Vladimir Bukovsky's archives). Some of them had high rank in the MVD, such as the infamous Danil Luntz, who was characterized by Viktor Nekipelov as "no better than the criminal doctors who performed inhuman experiments on the prisoners in Nazi concentration camps".[3]

The sane individuals who were diagnosed as mentally ill were sent either to a regular psychiatric hospitals or, those deemed particularly dangerous, to special ones, run directly by the MVD.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Such a love is exactly the same "towards" one's enemy as it is "towards" one's friend. Both are understood the same, and are experienced the same.

There would have to be some kind of differentiation of the state itself to call it love of all things rather than hate of all things - and for the sake of adequate comparison. one could consider that hatred as lacking in emotion as Kevin attributes to agape. Ultimate Reality is as much Joy (as Kevin mentioned) as it is Sorrow. Ultimate understanding knows this, yet the enlightened (by various definitions) are "choosy" about feeling love of all things, rather than a resigned form of disappointment.

So either a person is truly committed to the ideal of universal love and endeavours to beak his conditioning so much that he can love all things, without exception, unconditionally, or else he can wimp out and settle for ordinary selfishness and try to pretend to himself and others that he is engaging in love.

So what is your perspective on the enlightened and universal love? I know you are a proponent of good judgment, so do you believe an enlightened person can not have universal love and good judgment at the same time, or how else do you see the two qualities playing out?
.

[PyroSylph]

The category 'illness' only arises when it becomes a trouble. But a trouble for whom?

But a trouble for whom?

In this case (diagnosis), the trouble would be for the children, spouse, parents, friends and acquaintances of the sufferer. And potential trouble for people who unwittingly believe someone who suffers from the disorder is embracing the symptoms exhibited not because of a valid mental disorder, but for an exalted purpose. It's rather troublesome to be attached to someone who is (as stated in as many words at wikipedia) emotionally cold, has a limited capacity to show either negative OR positive emotion toward others, no desire to form relationships, takes pleasure in few (if any) activities, is indifferent to social norms, preoccupied with themselves and their own fantasies, and lack sexual desires.

Lack of emotion is an impossibility to someone who does not suffer from such a disorder. Very, very few things we do in our every day lives are not motivated by some emotion. To make lack of emotion a goal is akin to attempting to levitate through meditation. The outcome is pretty obvious, the reasoning behind it is also. Choosing to separate ones self from others for the purpose of achieving some higher conscious perception is one thing, a complete inability to relate to others on a basis which does not interfere with one's own ego (read: preoccupation with themselves) is another mule. There is a huge difference between A: spiritual introspection that requires brief periods of solitude and B: an inability to relate to others due to mental illness. One can attempt to separate themselves from others (in an emotional sense) for more obvious reasons; like maybe they have been burned one time too many in a personal relationship (be it family, friend or lover). Normally, unless there are issues involved that may require outside counseling, this passes.

The most disturbing of the symptoms (to me at least) is the limited capacity to show either negative or positive emotion toward others. A lot of people would love to be able to dismiss all negative emotion. However, would they choose to do so at the expense of dismissing all positive emotion as well? Those who suffer from this disorder could care less... nor more! One would logically assume that if one were to make his/her goal one of pure compassion, being able to actually experience compassion would be a prerequisite.

And could someone please show me where the definition of compassion is given that says it is not an emotion? Kevin's own definition includes emotion. Kevin said:

Agape is really an understanding - an understanding of all things - and is hence identical to Wisdom and Compassion.

First off, one would have to have the desire (an emotion) to obtain an understanding of all things to begin with. If we look at the established definition of agape, it is a selfless love, a spiritual love. Who here can deny love is an emotion, selfless or otherwise? How can one have understanding without agape? Wisdom without understanding? Compassion without wisdom? Any of the above without emotion?

Just for the record: Does Kevin believe compassion is not a human emotion? What is Kevin's definition of compassion and wisdom?

Also, can someone explain the need some people have here to capitalize words like joy, sorrow, reality and wisdom? Does this not in some way give greater import to these words? And by doing so, does that not go against the idea that nothing is more important than anything else; i.e. dismissing "equal towards literally all things"?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Pyro,

As I understand it, the QRS consider emotion to be something strongly felt, roughly equivalent to what the rest of the world calls strong emotion.

Regarding your capitalization question, there is a difference between Joy and joy, Sorrow and sorrow, Truth and truth, etc.; the difference being that the capitalized ones refer to Ultimate Reality.
.

[Philosophaster]

A big difference, that.

[Unidian]

Nice picture...

It scared Pyro. :)

[Philosophaster]

Sorry Pyro. :-)

U: Did you notice the name of the newest registered user? LOL.

[David Quinn]

PyroSylph,

Just for the record: Does Kevin believe compassion is not a human emotion? What is Kevin's definition of compassion and wisdom?

Kevin explained his views on this matter on the show. A person who starts off seeking Truth will be necessarily be doing it out of emotion. He is driven by an emotional love for Truth. But over time, as he develops, that emotion will slowly wither away under the burning light of wisdom. What's left at the end is a mix of spontaneity, freedom and unwavering purpose.

Lack of emotion is an impossibility to someone who does not suffer from such a disorder. Very, very few things we do in our every day lives are not motivated by some emotion. To make lack of emotion a goal is akin to attempting to levitate through meditation.

On the contrary, it is a lot easier than you might think.

There is always a chain of events which leads to the arisal of an emotion, involving both the hardwiring of the bain and its software (i.e. its memories, values, habits, conceptual outlook on life, etc). Since both aspects are critical for the generation of an emotion, it is in the software side that a spiritual person can have an effect. Although he cannot alter his hardware - with its reptillian brain, hormones, adrenalin glands, fight-or-flight mechanisms, etc - he can address the problem of emotion via his software programming.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The weakest link in this instance is conscious perception. The chain of events which leads to an emotion can only be kickstarted into action when one is consciously perceiving a threatening situation, or a situation involving gain or loss. (It can also be kickstarted by a subconscious thought of threat or gain/loss. But this can be classed as a conscious perception, as far as this issue is concerned.)

The perfectly-enlightened person is thus able to eliminate the experience of emotion altogether. By no longer believing in the existence of his self, he can no longer perceive situations of threat or gain/loss. And so the chain of events which leads to an emotion response can never trigger into action inside him.

In other words, he is perfectly able to experience emotion - the hardware for generating emotion is still intact inside him - but the essential trigger for it never fires because he no longer has any reason for it to fire. Or to put it another way, if he ever does experience an emotion, it will be triggered by a deluded perception involving threat or gain vs. loss, which would instantly mean that he is no longer perfectly enlightened.

-

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

As I understand it, the QRS consider emotion to be something strongly felt, roughly equivalent to what the rest of the world calls strong emotion.

No, any kind of emotion - whether it be strong or subtle - is a product of delusion.

Regarding your capitalization question, there is a difference between Joy and joy, Sorrow and sorrow, Truth and truth, etc.; the difference being that the capitalized ones refer to Ultimate Reality.

I personally don't capitalize joy or sorrow. I capitalize Truth to distinguish the tremendous reality that enlightened people perceive and understand from ordinary logical truths - such as 1+1=2 and all things are caused - which are purely intellectual in nature and capable of being grasped by non-enlightened people.

In other words, it is merely a term of convenience - as all terms are, capitalized or uncapitalized.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David,

How can one have purpose without a perception of gain or loss?
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

any kind of emotion - whether it be strong or subtle - is a product of delusion.

Surely you don't mean that such things as compassion, which the rest of the world defines as a feeling, which (by the rest of the world's definition) is a product of being emotionally affected, would be a delusion, do you?
.