Mark, I don't know enough to form an opinion. It is extremely interesting, though, and I hope to learn more.
Marsha On Mar 4, 2012, at 2:42 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes Marsha, > > What you present below is an intellectual or conceptual construct from > writings about Buddha. The teachings of the Buddha, are of course > second hand, since Buddha did not write down any dogma. As such they > should be denoted as the teachings of the vast body of Buddhism, which > is often in conflict with itself, thus the sects which differentiated > themselves from each other. Let me try to explain my understanding > below, along with what I see as the relation to Buddhism. This is FYI > only, and you do not have to agree with it if you have good reason not > to based on your own experience. > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> According to the teachings of the Buddha the human personality comprises >> five “aggregates of grasping,”. They are also called the skandhas in >> Sanskrit or khandhas in Pali. They are: >> >> the aggregate of body (rupa); >> the aggregate of feelings or sensation (vedana); >> the aggregate of perception (samjna); >> the aggregate of volitional activities (samskara); >> the aggregate of consciousness (vinnana) > > These are conceptual analogies, of course, and can be presented in > ways other than these. These analogies are simply for the purposes of > intellectual sharing. >> >> >> It's interesting to see what Buddhism's perspective might be and how it >> might relate to the MoQ. So what does Buddhism have to say about feelings >> (vedana): >> >> >> ------------- >> >> >> The aggregate of feelings >> >> Feelings demarcate the body from the rest of the environment and give the >> body the sense of self. The Khandhasaµyutta (SN XXII.47; S iii.46) says that >> the uninstructed man, being impressed by feelings which are produced through >> contact with ignorance, thinks “I am this (body).” The body is strewn with >> an intricately woven network of nerve fibers, and there is no part of the >> body which is not sensitive to touch. The entire sensitive volume >> constitutes the I, the self, the ego. > > Mark's interpretation: > This is not correct, since feelings are part of the environment, and > cannot be separated from it. What this is attempting to do, is > release oneself from the Ego. Which is a dominating form of the > "self". So, the entire volume of sensitivity would not "constitute" > the "self", but can serve to strengthen the Ego. The "I' has many > components, and is not only the Ego (see explanations by Freud). >> >> When we say: “I am comfortable or happy or sad,” we identify ourselves with >> feelings. Statements such as: “He does not care for my happiness, he hurt my >> feelings,” also show how we establish a sense of possession for our >> feelings. There are three kinds of feelings, namely, pleasurable or happy >> feelings, unpleasant or painful feelings, and neutral feelings. No two types >> ever occur concurrently at any single moment. When pleasurable feelings are >> present the other two are absent; when painful feelings are there pleasant >> and neutral feelings are absent; similarly with neutral feelings. The >> Mahånidåna Sutta asks the question: when feelings are so complex in this >> manner, which feeling would one accept as one’s self? > > Mark's interpretation > Yes, and when Buddha stressed enlightenment, he also was referring to > the "I", for he was enlightened, not something separate from him. > Buddha had firm possession of his teachings, but warned the audience, > that such possessions were not theirs, for they had to find those on > their own. Buddha simply presents some techniques, some of them from > the intellectual paradigm. In my opinion, feeling's cannot be devided > into categories outside of the intellect. It is only the intellect > which does this, and such intellect stems from the passions. Will > begets the passions. The first thing a child has when born (and > possibly before) is Will. He has not separated his feelings yet, and > acts purely on Will. The separation is the bewitchment that the > intellect then brings. Such separation is of course conditional and > impermanent. > > One should not accept feelings as "self", and this is what mindfulness > teaches. This does not mean that the feelings do not exist, for they > do. Such feelings as "self" implies that we have control over them, > which we do not. We can simply accept them or deny them. Much denial > results in neurosis. Mediation allowed Buddha to realize the dynamic > nature of feelings. Read some well written biographies of Buddha for > a better explanation. > >> >> According to the Vedanåsaµyutta, innumerable feelings arise in the body just >> as all kinds of winds blow in different directions in the atmosphere. We are >> hardly aware of these feelings for the simple reason that we do not pay >> enough attention to them. If we observe, for a couple of minutes, how often >> we adjust our bodies and change the position of our limbs, we will be >> surprised to note that we hardly keep still even for a few seconds. What is >> the reason for this constant change of position and posture? Monotony of >> position causes discomfort and we change position and posture in search for >> comfort. We react to feelings, yearning for more and more pleasurable >> feelings, revolting against unpleasant feelings, and being generally unaware >> of neutral feelings. Therefore pleasurable feelings have desire as their >> latent tendency, unpleasant feelings have aversion as their latent tendency, >> and neutral feelings have ignorance as their latent tendency (MN 44; M >> i.303). Thus all feelings generate unskillful motivational roots and they >> partake of the nature of suffering (yaµ kiñci vedayitaµ taµ dukkhasmiµ, SN >> XXXVI.11; S iv.216). Though the search for comfort and pleasure goes on >> constantly throughout life, pleasure always eludes us like a mirage. > > Mark's interpretation: > Yes, feelings can be analogized by a wind. When the wind rustles the > branches of trees, the tree identifies with such wind through an > experiential mode. Buddha found great pleasure in his enlightenment. > This was one thing which kept him as a teacher for so many years. So > such a feeling is not inconsequential, and many benefited from his > teachings. The same should be true about MoQ. The MoQ provides tools > just as Buddha did, but should never be converted to dogma, as has > been the tendency of the West towards Buddhism. The feeling of a hot > stove come from the dynamic interface, and have intellectual latent > tendencies. Skillfulness is defined as an intellectual manipulation. > For indeed that is what the intellect is for. However, one must not > confuse it with the pre-intellectual. > > If one is suffering, then pleasure does not work for them for they are > seeking something permanent. The teachings of Quality demonstrate > that such a thing is illusory. Therefore, those who are indeed > suffering from lack of satisfaction from this existence should > certainly turn to Buddhism as a refuge. The same can be said for MoQ. > It is not for everyone. but for those who "want" more. Such wanting > is a passion that Buddha needed to arrive at his own fulfillment. >> >> Our feelings are extremely private and personal. One may have a splitting >> headache, but the one next to him may not know anything about his painful >> sensations. We only infer the pain of another by his facial expressions, >> behavior, and words, but we certainly do not know the feelings of another. >> We are so unique in the experiences of feelings: one may be sensitive to >> heat; another to cold, mosquitoes, or fleas; another to certain kinds of >> pollen. One may have a low threshold for pain, another a high threshold. >> Thus each one is so unique in the totality of his sensitivity that we are >> utterly and absolutely alone in our private prison of feelings. > > Yes, personal experience which can never to adequately objectified, > and can only be presented as static words. The manner in which the > author presents the "we" is in accordance to the intuitive self, which > is much more comprehensive than the intellectual self. For such > intellectual self cannot be found using intellectual tools. That is > because it is a construct of the intellect, and the intellect cannot > find itself. > > What makes absolute aloneness is our ability to interact though the > social level. Buddha did not have this intellectual construct at his > disposal and he is simply pointing to "intellectual aloneness" He does > speak much of the communities which he set up. He understood that > such communities would be temporary, since new modes of intellectual > awareness are alway being created. This is the format for the > intellectual level. Which Buddha fully understood in my opinion. >> >> The Buddha defines feeling as the act of feeling. There is no “thing” called >> feeling apart from the act of feeling. Therefore feelings are dynamic, >> ever-changing, impermanent. They do not remain within our control either, >> for we cannot say: “Let me have or not have such and such feelings.” They >> come and go as they please, we have no control or right of ownership over >> them. Therefore the Buddha exhorts us: “Give up that which does not belong >> to you.” Trying to possess that which is fleeting and defies ownership >> causes grief. Giving up spells the end of sorrow. > > Mark's interpretation: > > Yes, we interpret feelings and such interpretation cannot be separated > from the act of feeling. This is why the universe cannot be separated > from the act of morality. One should not try to deny one's feelings > since one cannot stop a wind. When Buddha is said to have said "Give > up that which does not belong to you", he is suggesting to stop living > in static quality as if it were the end all. If sorrow perssits, it > is because we have intellectualized such sorrow, and thus hang on to > it. If one does not intellectualize it, it passes through. > > I hope this is understandable for you, and is simply my interpretation > and not yours (which was not presented). My hope is that this is some > help to you, however pride always has a manner in which preventing any > assistance. Just remember, pride is but a feeling. > > I encourage other members to provide their interpretation of what > Marsha has presented, since I believe it lies at the heart of many > disagreements. It may not be easy, but such a thing can be performed > by those not feint at heart. The rest can sit on the sideline of MoQ. > > Cheers, > Mark >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
