[MD] aggregates of grasping
118
ununoctiums at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 07:53:07 PST 2012
Ham has it.
Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark
On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:44 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> 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