Feeling and mental perception

[Bindi]

 

[Bindi]

@Mark Foote, I’ve made a new thread to not disrupt daniels very good efforts to get to the bottom of the meaning of nonduality. My conclusions are fundamentally different to Gautama’s I believe, in that to me the root of suffering is our endless tendency to stifle feeling bad. Locating feelings in the Ida Nadi means that our subtle energy body is disrupted through stifling as subtle energy is stopped from flowing through, and even in the central channel I am inclined to believe that the root problem is emotional damage that is carried over. 
 

To me kundalini is a valid part of the path and central channel work, and from what I can understand kundalini herself is also wounded, it’s like all the yin layers are suppressed and consequently damaged, and the work that I do is to allow feelings as the fundamental cure. As far as I know Buddhism refers to feelings as illusory, I see them as subtle energy and entirely real and valid. 

[Maddie]

25 minutes ago, Bindi said:

@Mark Foote As far as I know Buddhism refers to feelings as illusory, I see them as subtle energy and entirely real and valid. 

 

Buddhism doesn't see feelings as an illusion. Buddhism sees feelings as an experience so therefore one of the true real things there are.

 What Buddhism does see as an illusion is the narrative that we tend to make from feelings.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Maddie

[liminal_luke]

4 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 My conclusions are fundamentally different to Gautama’s I believe, in that to me the root of suffering is our endless tendency to stifle feeling bad.
 

 As far as I know Buddhism refers to feelings as illusory, I see them as subtle energy and entirely real and valid. 

 

Bindi --

 

Seems to me your view is actually very close to the Buddhist view as it has been explained to me.  Like you, Buddhists believe that stifling feelings is very much at the root of suffering.  While feelings may ultimately be illusory, they are also entirely real and valid, exactly as you say. 

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Bindi --

 

Seems to me your view is actually very close to the Buddhist view as it has been explained to me.  Like you, Buddhists believe that stifling feelings is very much at the root of suffering.  While feelings may ultimately be illusory, they are also entirely real and valid, exactly as you say. 

 

Yes stifling anything is actually not Buddhist because the point of Buddhism is to know things as they actually are and stifling is the opposite of that.

[Bindi]

11 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Buddhism doesn't see feelings as an illusion. Buddhism sees feelings as an experience so therefore one of the true a few real things there are.

 What Buddhism does see as an illusion is the narrative that we tend to make from feelings.

I agree the narrative can be misleading, I do try to just feel the pure feeling divorced of narrative. 

[Bindi]

8 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Bindi --

 

Seems to me your view is actually very close to the Buddhist view as it has been explained to me.  Like you, Buddhists believe that stifling feelings is very much at the root of suffering.  While feelings may ultimately be illusory, they are also entirely real and valid, exactly as you say. 

In what sense are feelings illusory?

[liminal_luke]

18 minutes ago, Bindi said:

In what sense are feelings illusory?

 

I am no kind of expert Buddhist philosopher, so I cant say for sure that they are.  In my experience, Buddhists say that a lot of things are empty and void of an independent self so why not feelings?  Heres the thing though: the way to understand the nature of feelings is by feeling them.  Buddhists are notoriously opposed to avoidance or stifling of any kind.  As a veteran of several vipassana retreats, I can tell you that Ive never felt so much in my life as I did on that zafu.

 

In some ways, I think the forum gives readers the wrong idea about Buddhism.  A Bum might come away from these threads thinking that Buddhism was all about debating arcane and hard to understand concepts like non-dualism, whereas the actual practice of Buddhism involves lots of crying and physical discomfort.  YMMV

Edited November 12, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Maddie]

19 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

In some ways, I think the forum gives readers the wrong idea about Buddhism.  A Bum might come away from these threads thinking that Buddhism was all about debating arcane and hard to understand concepts like non-dualism, whereas the actual practice of Buddhism involves lots of crying and physical discomfort.  YMMV

 

My personal experience of Buddhism involves more crying and less debating lol. 

 

But yes Buddhism is grossly misunderstood even by Buddhists.

[Apech]

19 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I am no kind of expert Buddhist philosopher, so I cant say for sure that they are.  In my experience, Buddhists say that a lot of things are empty and void of an independent self so why not feelings?  Heres the thing though: the way to understand the nature of feelings is by feeling them.  Buddhists are notoriously opposed to avoidance or stifling of any kind.  As a veteran of several vipassana retreats, I can tell you that Ive never felt so much in my life as I did on that zafu.

 

In some ways, I think the forum gives readers the wrong idea about Buddhism.  A Bum might come away from these threads thinking that Buddhism was all about debating arcane and hard to understand concepts like non-dualism, whereas the actual practice of Buddhism involves lots of crying and physical discomfort.  YMMV

 

Buddhism has made me cry - I'm serious - it released a lot of pent up feeling in me (perhaps not enough because I still go on about non-dualism).

 

I think although thw word illusory is very popular with Buddhists it should be banned because it gives the wrong impression.

 

 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

My personal experience of Buddhism involves more crying and less debating lol. 

 

But yes Buddhism is grossly misunderstood even by Buddhists.

 

me too

[liminal_luke]

I went several years without talking to my rich but difficult to get along with grandmother.  Then I went on a long vipassana retreat and spent many hours in tears as suppressed emotion from my childhood swept over me.  Finally, I got to a place where I wanted to speak to my grandmother again and, breaking my vow of silence, I phoned her.  After she died, she gave me a non-illusory pile of money.  Which just goes to show a truth that we rarely speak about during these spiritual debates: Buddhism pays.

[stirling]

48 minutes ago, Bindi said:

In what sense are feelings illusory?

 

One way to look at it might be this: 

 

When you see a bird land in a tree, you don't assume it is something that is happening to you. By learning to take apart your sense of how things happen and where, it can eventually be seen that when a thought, or feeling arise that they also aren't necessarily "yours". By learning to witness our thoughts and feelings we change our relationship with them. You don't ignore or deny them, but simply learn not to get lost in them, or spend ours lost in the internal monologue that makes many of us so miserable, the monologue we assume is who we are. It is great first step in transforming ever-day experience into a "path" . 

 

A great book that is non-denominational and full of relatable exercises for seeing this sort of thing is Michael Singer's "Untethered Soul". It is slight volume and a New York Times best seller, but you can find it used for next to nothing, often with an un-cracked spine.The mind of many people won't want to read it.

[Cobie]

 

30 minutes ago, stirling said:

… When you see a bird land in a tree, you don't assume it is something that is happening to you. …

Sounds mighty ‘dual’ to me.   What happened to: 

 

5 hours ago, stirling said:

… nothing exists as an independent entity … all dualities are … delusions they always were …

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Maddie]

I guess I'm a bit confused because I hear about all this non-duality spoken of in a Buddhist context here and granted I've mostly read the Pali Canon but I've never heard of non-dualism spoken of by the Buddha.

[stirling]

15 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Sounds mighty ‘dual’ to me.   What happened to: 

 

Indeed it is. You have to start somewhere! Where you are is always a good place.  

 

If you were working with a Mahayana Buddhist teacher the chances are that you would probably get pointing out instructions right off the bat. Some percentage of those that have that introduction just get it immediately, but it is pretty rare. 

 

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I agree the narrative can be misleading, I do try to just feel the pure feeling divorced of narrative. 
 

I was reading quickly, and I thought you said "I do try to just feel the puke feeling divorced of narrative."

No, wait...

 

[stirling]

3 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I guess I'm a bit confused because I hear about all this non-duality spoken of in a Buddhist context here and granted I've mostly read the Pali Canon but I've never heard of non-dualism spoken of by the Buddha.

 

Anatta, or no-self is non-dual understanding from the Buddhist perspective.

[Mark Foote]

54 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I went several years without talking to my rich but difficult to get along with grandmother.  Then I went on a long vipassana retreat and spent many hours in tears as suppressed emotion from my childhood swept over me.  Finally, I got to a place where I wanted to speak to my grandmother again and, breaking my vow of silence, I phoned her.  After she died, she gave me a non-illusory pile of money.  Which just goes to show a truth that we rarely speak about during these spiritual debates: Buddhism pays.x
 

 

Of course, the money was just another worldly illusion, an illusory thing (but you kept it). 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

45 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

One way to look at it might be this: 

 

When you see a bird land in a tree, you don't assume it is something that is happening to you.
 

You know I like to tease you, stirling:

 

 

If you are not disturbed by the sound of the bluejay when you are reading something, the bluejay will come right into your heart, and you will be a bluejay, and the bluejay will be reading something.
 

(from the video, Shunryu Suzuki Discusses the Sandokai: Sound and Noise)

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

Just now, Mark Foote said:

 

Of course, the money was just another worldly illusion, an illusory thing (but you kept it). 

 

 

 

I might seem to be defending Buddhism in these threads but dont be fooled.  I keep a tight grip on all my illusions.

[Cobie]

 

4 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

… I keep a tight grip on all my illusions.

 

Righto. 
 

On 11/11/2023 at 9:27 PM, Nungali said:

I find his post  .....  'gripping'  .  

 

  Hide contents

Sorry

 

Sometimes I cant help myself .

 

 

 

[stirling]

12 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

You know I like to tease you, stirling:

 

 

If you are not disturbed by the sound of the bluejay when you are reading something, the bluejay will come right into your heart, and you will be a bluejay, and the bluejay will be reading something.
 

(from the video, Shunryu Suzuki Discusses the Sandokai: Sound and Noise)

 

Ah, Northern California... the bluejay is ALWAYS vying for attention, eh?

 

This is a perfect (if poetic) statement of the complete understanding. If you haven't had "sudden realization", however, the way through is in deconstructing the "self", and the method of realizing the "witness" is a powerful one. 

[Maddie]

26 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Anatta, or no-self is non-dual understanding from the Buddhist perspective.

 

Would you mind clarifying how Anatta is a non-dual understanding?

 

 I've always understood it that the five aggregates are not self.

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

One way to look at it might be this: 

 

When you see a bird land in a tree, you don't assume it is something that is happening to you. By learning to take apart your sense of how things happen and where, it can eventually be seen that when a thought, or feeling arise that they also aren't necessarily "yours". By learning to witness our thoughts and feelings we change our relationship with them. You don't ignore or deny them, but simply learn not to get lost in them, or spend ours lost in the internal monologue that makes many of us so miserable, the monologue we assume is who we are. It is great first step in transforming ever-day experience into a "path" . 

 

 

As Maddie said earlier it is the monologue attached to the feeling that creates the suffering, I might say it is the monologue that extends the suffering, the feeling in the moment might make me miserable but when it ends I am not miserable anymore - some feelings are decidedly unpleasant. 
 

But… at this point in time I do take the feeling as ‘me’, just as I take thoughts to be me and my body to be me. I am also Shakti and shiva, and at some point I may identify as their child, I am multifaceted and can see the world through all of these perspectives, why would I need to disidentify with any perspective? I am a multicelled organism with multiple perspectives as opposed to Buddha’s no-self. 

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

 

A great book that is non-denominational and full of relatable exercises for seeing this sort of thing is Michael Singer's "Untethered Soul". It is slight volume and a New York Times best seller, but you can find it used for next to nothing, often with an un-cracked spine.The mind of many people won't want to read it.