26:13 “…Emotions - you could take it kind of on the same level as the 5 hindrances.” The cause is maintaining the resistance to unpleasant feelings(…etc.) Excellent. Sensations, feeling, and emotions must be understood in order to even know what to pay attention to and what to do/not to do and why. I think the general misunderstanding of these phenomena causes a lot of wasted time and wrong “practice”. This should be one of the first talks new comers should listen to. Thank you, Bhantes
I have a question. What would be the equivalent in pali of these words : Sensation, feeling, emotion. By the way the talk was great but I think this terminological point would be useful.
Thank you for this discussions but why the Buddha taught : Ô monk there's is this two kind of Feelings. Mental Feeling (cetasika-vedana) and Bodily Feeling (vedana-kayika) Then 3 kind in each category Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. What is Bodily Feeling if its not sensations? Source :SN 36.22 (S iv 231) Aṭṭhasata Sutta With respect and Mettã.
Sensations are essentially bodily perceptions, such as heat or cold, or a mosquito biting you. Bodily feeling is the feeling that accompanies such sensations. For example, on one occasion a cold breeze might be pleasing to you, while on another occasion it might be displeasing (or neutral). In this way, feeling can be distinguished from perception. Mental feeling is the feeling that accompanies (or co-constitutes, when regarded in the context of the five aggregates) mental phenomena. A memory for example, is a mental phenomenon that is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neither (and the feeling can change in relation to the same memory). So the Buddha made a distinction between mental and bodily feeling, but bodily feelings are not sensations (just as feeling and perception are two different aggregates).
Thank you! Super interesting topic indeed! But I always had confusion regarding what feeling is or rather the nuance of whether it's under our control or not. The very fact that there can be negative / positive feeling means that it is a reactonary nature to the sensations. I.e it is a second order of things and it's rather a judgement. So it's rather similar the way emotions work: pain -> attachment to sense of pleasure -> negative feeling -> negative emotions. And if one get rid of attachment the chain would break right at the attachment step: pain -> no attachment -> neutral feeling -> no emotions. To clarify, in same way as emotions, I do not think feelings fully under our control in the moment, but by training the mind one can learn to be less judgemental / reactionary towards the arising sensations. Does it make sense?
Feeling is not a reaction to sensations; feelings and sensations are simultaneously present. So it is not a question of breaking a chain at the right step (which implies a process, i.e. time, while the dhamma is timeless), but rather discerning the difference between feeling and sensation and realizing that the origin of suffering is craving, and craving is always in relation to feeling. Give up craving (or attachment) and there can be no suffering.
@@SamanadipaHermitage But there is a temporal gap between a feeling and en emotion, I presume? So you'd have a painful sensation + a negative feeling (simultaneous or nearly simultaneous) -> [some amount of processing] -> negative emotion?
@@Limemill A ‘painful sensation’ already involves two things: feeling (the painfulness) and a sensation (which is essentially a bodily perception). So painful sensations don’t produce feelings. Similarly, an emotion is always already either pleasant or painful for you, and the more the dhamma is understood, the more it will be seen that all emotions are actually painful. Emotions are not the result of ‘painful sensations’, but can arise only when there is attachment (or craving), and on the most fundamental level (which is where the dhamma really applies), craving is always in relation to feeling (i.e. craving FOR pleasure or AGAINST displeasure). Abandon craving and there can be no suffering, but it is essential to see that craving is not feeling, and to distinguish feeling from emotions and sensations.
@@SamanadipaHermitage Thank you Bhante. So, sensation + feeling is perceived as one entity but in reality these are two things that always come in pair. Bodily perception, then, is, physiologically, sort of like an event registration by the nervous system and the painful / pleasant feeling is the result of this event's categorization? Is there a way to directly see these two aspects separately from each other experientially? Or since pleasant / unpleasant feelings are sort of easy to observe, is there a way to observe perception on its own? And then emotions are a result of craving or aversion towards the pleasant or painful feeling. So, the sequence is: I hit something with my head -> physical contact with the head is registered by the perception and, simultaneously, this contact is recognized as painful by the feeling -> aversion kicks in, "I don't like it, we need to get rid of it" -> an emotion arises (e.g., pitying oneself due to the pain or becoming angry with oneself for not being more attentive or even being angry with whatever you hit with the head as a childish response seeking the external source to lay the blame on). Is this understanding correct? Do feelings + perceptions always create emotions for a puthujjana, i.e., when craving is heavily present? Or does it depend on the situation? What purpose does it serve to separate perception from feeling given that one will be working with craving directed towards or away from the feeling, and perception, on its own, is unimportant as far as breaking the chain between the feeling and the emotion is concerned?
Thank you Venerables and Community for these important and very helpful Dhamma Discussions. Sadhu!
26:13 “…Emotions - you could take it kind of on the same level as the 5 hindrances.” The cause is maintaining the resistance to unpleasant feelings(…etc.)
Excellent. Sensations, feeling, and emotions must be understood in order to even know what to pay attention to and what to do/not to do and why.
I think the general misunderstanding of these phenomena causes a lot of wasted time and wrong “practice”. This should be one of the first talks new comers should listen to.
Thank you, Bhantes
Thank you!!!
Thanks Bhantes
I have a question. What would be the equivalent in pali of these words : Sensation, feeling, emotion. By the way the talk was great but I think this terminological point would be useful.
Thank you for this discussions but why the Buddha taught :
Ô monk there's is this two kind of Feelings.
Mental Feeling (cetasika-vedana) and Bodily Feeling (vedana-kayika)
Then 3 kind in each category
Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral.
What is Bodily Feeling if its not sensations?
Source :SN 36.22 (S iv 231)
Aṭṭhasata Sutta
With respect and Mettã.
Sensations are essentially bodily perceptions, such as heat or cold, or a mosquito biting you. Bodily feeling is the feeling that accompanies such sensations. For example, on one occasion a cold breeze might be pleasing to you, while on another occasion it might be displeasing (or neutral). In this way, feeling can be distinguished from perception. Mental feeling is the feeling that accompanies (or co-constitutes, when regarded in the context of the five aggregates) mental phenomena. A memory for example, is a mental phenomenon that is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neither (and the feeling can change in relation to the same memory). So the Buddha made a distinction between mental and bodily feeling, but bodily feelings are not sensations (just as feeling and perception are two different aggregates).
Well done. Interesting dharma discussion .Maybe some atoms in there are going to become a non returner 😊
Thank you! Super interesting topic indeed! But I always had confusion regarding what feeling is or rather the nuance of whether it's under our control or not. The very fact that there can be negative / positive feeling means that it is a reactonary nature to the sensations. I.e it is a second order of things and it's rather a judgement. So it's rather similar the way emotions work: pain -> attachment to sense of pleasure -> negative feeling -> negative emotions. And if one get rid of attachment the chain would break right at the attachment step: pain -> no attachment -> neutral feeling -> no emotions. To clarify, in same way as emotions, I do not think feelings fully under our control in the moment, but by training the mind one can learn to be less judgemental / reactionary towards the arising sensations. Does it make sense?
Feeling is not a reaction to sensations; feelings and sensations are simultaneously present. So it is not a question of breaking a chain at the right step (which implies a process, i.e. time, while the dhamma is timeless), but rather discerning the difference between feeling and sensation and realizing that the origin of suffering is craving, and craving is always in relation to feeling. Give up craving (or attachment) and there can be no suffering.
@@SamanadipaHermitage Thank you for the pointer! Been processing and contemplating it and it makes more sense now 🙏
@@SamanadipaHermitage But there is a temporal gap between a feeling and en emotion, I presume? So you'd have a painful sensation + a negative feeling (simultaneous or nearly simultaneous) -> [some amount of processing] -> negative emotion?
@@Limemill A ‘painful sensation’ already involves two things: feeling (the painfulness) and a sensation (which is essentially a bodily perception). So painful sensations don’t produce feelings. Similarly, an emotion is always already either pleasant or painful for you, and the more the dhamma is understood, the more it will be seen that all emotions are actually painful. Emotions are not the result of ‘painful sensations’, but can arise only when there is attachment (or craving), and on the most fundamental level (which is where the dhamma really applies), craving is always in relation to feeling (i.e. craving FOR pleasure or AGAINST displeasure). Abandon craving and there can be no suffering, but it is essential to see that craving is not feeling, and to distinguish feeling from emotions and sensations.
@@SamanadipaHermitage Thank you Bhante. So, sensation + feeling is perceived as one entity but in reality these are two things that always come in pair. Bodily perception, then, is, physiologically, sort of like an event registration by the nervous system and the painful / pleasant feeling is the result of this event's categorization? Is there a way to directly see these two aspects separately from each other experientially? Or since pleasant / unpleasant feelings are sort of easy to observe, is there a way to observe perception on its own? And then emotions are a result of craving or aversion towards the pleasant or painful feeling. So, the sequence is: I hit something with my head -> physical contact with the head is registered by the perception and, simultaneously, this contact is recognized as painful by the feeling -> aversion kicks in, "I don't like it, we need to get rid of it" -> an emotion arises (e.g., pitying oneself due to the pain or becoming angry with oneself for not being more attentive or even being angry with whatever you hit with the head as a childish response seeking the external source to lay the blame on). Is this understanding correct? Do feelings + perceptions always create emotions for a puthujjana, i.e., when craving is heavily present? Or does it depend on the situation? What purpose does it serve to separate perception from feeling given that one will be working with craving directed towards or away from the feeling, and perception, on its own, is unimportant as far as breaking the chain between the feeling and the emotion is concerned?