[MD] aggregates of grasping
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Tue Mar 6 16:44:52 PST 2012
Hi Mark,
Some weeks ago you promised Ham that you would present your completed philosophical system. Well, Ham and I are waiting.
Marsha
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:50 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
> On 3/6/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> It is my opinion that static patterns of value are comprised of the
>> interaction of all five aggregates: the bits and pieces that flow as
>> ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized
>> self. That would be an open-ended question/possibility more than an
>> opinion.
>
> What would you say is the nature of that interaction? That is, why do
> the aggregates interact in the way that they do? We have patterns
> that interact, but what defines HOW they interact? What directs the
> changing and the need for conditional co-dependence? Why are they
> seen as impermanent. Why must the self be conceptualized? Can it not
> exist outside of such conceptualization?
>
> You can provide your opinions if you want. Or not. Open ended
> questions beg for answers, and you start by saying you have an
> opinion, but you end by saying it is not...A question comes from a
> view, and formulates an opinion.
>>
> Mark>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 6:49 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>>
> 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
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list