[MD] aggregates of grasping

Mon Mar 5 15:49:38 PST 2012

Through this forum we can create opinions as "far out" as they may seem.  Discussion can help us reformulate.  It is always part of creation.  We will never know enough to stop our opinions from progressing, so their is never "enough".  Give it a shot.  There are never any stupid opinions.  No matter what other members may proclaim.  They just have an agenda.  Such agenda is static, and not becoming of MoQ's striving towards "betterness", IMO.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:30 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 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 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> 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 <valkyr at att.net> 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