Š Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 1 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' by Jack on Thu 4 Nov 2010 - 23:16 I've been thinking. What is it that determines whether a dhamma is felt as pleasant unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant? It is obvious that feeling is entirely subjective but for example - People almost universally enjoy ice cream, whether as only some people enjoy brussel sprouts but others thinks the taste and the act of eating them is unpleasant. Why do I feel an unpleasant feeling when doing activity X or the thought occurs that I will have to in future, but not when I am doing activity Y? It seems to be fairly arbitrary Would be really keen to hear your thoughts on the matter. metta Jack by acinteyyo on Fri 5 Nov 2010 - 10:41 Hi Jack, in my eyes the anusaya (proclivity) and the kilesa are what determines the arising of either an unpleasant, pleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling. Whatever corresponds to the individual proclivities, goes in line with ones disposition appears as pleasant, whatever goes against ones dispositon appears as unpleasant, what neither goes in line nor against appears as neither pleasant nor unpleasant. The whole process happens in relation to greed (pleasant), hatred (unpleasant) and delusion (neither-nor). See SN36.3 Pahana Sutta: Giving Up hope it helps, best wishes, acinteyyo by Mathias on Fri 5 Nov 2010 - 13:59 Hello, this is also one of my "favorite questions". I cannot give a definite answer yet, but I would like to contribute some thoughts. 1) I think it is quite remarkable how on a very basic level pleasure and pain are related to the integrity and continuity of the body and the conservation of the species, so it seems that in a certain sense feelings are a way of "nature" to regulate behaviour (apart from the faculty of reason). Whether we know the whys and wherefores or not, "pleasure and pain" (try to) tell us what to avoid (touching a flame for too long or pressing against something spiky for example)
Š Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 2 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' and what to pursue (eating certain foods or having sex etc.) - with more or less success. 2) I am not sure that we can generally say that ... actinteyyo wrote: the anusaya (proclivity) and the kilesa are what determines the arising of either an unpleasant, pleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling. Whatever corresponds to the individual proclivities, goes in line with ones disposition appears as pleasant, whatever goes against ones dispositon appears as unpleasant, what neither goes in line nor against appears as neither pleasant nor unpleasant. The whole process happens in relation to greed (pleasant), hatred (unpleasant) and delusion (neither-nor). ... since the suttas also tell us that craving depends on feeling and that the aggregat of feeling is still there in the arahat. Here the question seems to be: Do we like things because they are pleasant or are things pleasant because we like them? I cannot imagine how to develop a disposition towards something if that something doesn't appear pleasant in the first place. So if dispostion and proclivity are about the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, then it is quite obvious to me that pleasure and pain can't be the result of that which depends on them. With best wishes, Mathias by acinteyyo on Fri 5 Nov 2010 - 18:42 Do we like things because they are pleasant or are things pleasant because we like them? In my eyes things are pleasant because we like them. They're not pleasant in the first place. That's why people can like and dislike lots of different things, depending on their particular proclivity. And the more I think about it, I guess intention (cetana) also may have its part in that process. Personality-view und ignorance also play an important role. I don't think that it's important to know exactly what leads to a pleasant feeling and what to an unpleasant feeling. The whole process is way to complicated, so many factors involved creating some kind of inscrutable momentum... a bit like the issue with kamma and vipaka, if you ask me... But it is very important to be mindful, to know when there is a pleasant feeling, that there is a pleasant feeling, to know when there is an unpleasant feeling, that there is an unpleasant feeling. Pleasant or unpleasant even neither-nor is not the main problem, it's craving and clinging to those feelings. All dhammas arise and cease according to their nature. It is enough to know how to end all this arising and ceasing, but one doesn't need to know exactly why all this is how it is. However if
Š Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 3 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' you want to know it, I'm not going to try to stop your investigations. There is ignorance and therefore there "am I" (even if it is already identified as delusion). As long as "I am", there are views about what is "good" for "me" and what isn't. These views and opinions are based on ignorance, on the fact that I don't see things as they are, but as I believe what/who/how I am. There already is dispositon towards particular things and aversion towards others... greed, hatred and delusion in action... best wishes, acinteyyo by Mathias on Fri 5 Nov 2010 - 19:44 actinteyyo wrote: In my eyes things are pleasant because we like them. They're not pleasant in the first place. That's why people can like and dislike lots of different things, depending on their particular proclivity. I think we agree that we don't really know why things appear pleasant or unpleasant to us. I only know that I like the pleasant ones and dislike the unpleasant ones. And that's why I think that, from the experiential point of view, feeling comes first, liking or disliking comes second (here we seem to disagree). My likings and dislikings depend on feelings, which means that the only way to know whether I like something or not is a feeling about that something and not vice versa. To say that feeling depends on liking/disliking is not my experience, but I agree that whenever there is liking/disliking, there is also feeling together with it. You are right that people can like and dislike lots of different things, but this also means that people can have different feelings about these things (even about one and the same thing). I think the ability to feel pleasure and pain is as basic and subjective as (for example) the experience of colours, i.e. there is no way to "logically deduce" them from something else (wavelength for example). With best wishes, Mathias by acinteyyo on Sat 6 Nov 2010 - 19:45 Hi Mathias, you raise an important point. I agree from the experiential point of view that feeling comes first, liking or disliking comes second, not necessarily in time but logically. We have to be careful. When I said: acinteyyo wrote: In my eyes things are pleasant because we like them
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 4 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' I just wanted to say that I think when there is contact, the feeling which arises is pleasant because we have a proclivity, a dispositon towards that particular thing which appears in experience. The proclivity probably develops from thinking and human nature... don't really know... maybe just ignorance which is the cause for dispositions like greed, hatred and delusion. The liking or disliking of which you are talking about is something different and not what I meant when I said that. It is not feeling (vedanā) but perception (saññā) or rather papañca deduced from feeling and perception. (See Translator's Intro of MN18) What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes." When we usually say that we like or dislike something it is what we think about that thing. Thoughts which became habits. It's not because of the vedanā or saññā in the first place (although vedanā and saññā playing an important role) , it's because of the improper consideration (ayoniso manasikāra), because of ignorance, not seeing things as they are. We think about what we felt and how we perceived it, finally coming to views and opinions about it, like liking or disliking: "I like this because it is pleasant" or "I don't like it because it is unpleasant", views which should be given up. Mathias wrote: I only know that I like the pleasant ones and dislike the unpleasant ones. If you think pleasant or unpleasant vedanā are the only reason why you like or dislike something, then you only see one part of the picture. best wishes, acinteyyo by Mathias on Mon 8 Nov 2010 - 16:52 Dear acinteyyo, I was once heavily influenced by the writings of Paul Debes and some of his "followers". I don't know whether you know him or not, but according to him, feelings are the response of "hidden tendencies" to the experience. He also describes how these tendencies originate from thinking etc. To me that sounds quite similar to some things you mention here. Anyway, I can no longer agree with this kind of view. I think, there is a lot of speculation involved and it seems to me that the main motive of Mr. Debes for the introduction of this teaching about the tendencies was the wish to "prove" the existence of an afterlife by some kind of "logic" (see for example "Meisterung der Existenz durch die Lehre des Buddha" where he exactly tries to accomplish this) in order to make the teachings of the Buddha better accessible, especially for people from the west. But that was of course not your point.
Š Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 5 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' You said that you agree with me from the experiential point of view that feeling comes first, liking or disliking comes second, not necessarily in time but logically. I would like to let it go at that. I hope this is not a problem. With best wishes, Mathias by acinteyyo on Mon 8 Nov 2010 - 17:26 Hi Mathias, I know Mr. Debes from hearsay but I'm not familiar with his teachings. What I said is just the way I see it and I don't call for infallibility. I'm fine with the points where we agree and your wish to leave it that way. best wishes, acinteyyo by Mathias on Fri 12 Nov 2010 - 20:34 Regardings Jack's question from the beginning, I just want to add that from an experiential point of view feeling seems to be determined by the appearance of the thing or situation . That is certainly not an explanation by disclosure of "underlying causes", but it is at least directly related to experience. For example: If I ask myself why a certain face appears beautiful (pleasant) to me, I can only say that this is the case because the face looks so and so. That's all I know in that moment if I don't want to speculate or to guess or to reason out "logically". So the pleasantness or unpleasantness is not something isolated but related to the (rest of the) appearance. But if I say for example that we are genetically programmed to feel in a certain way, this cannot be experienced and is therefore of no value. Such "explanations" don't help us, because they require us to believe something without the possibility to know for ourselves. They are just speculations (at least if a person tries to discover such "truths" about himself/herself by self-observation, which is not possible). by acinteyyo on Sat 13 Nov 2010 - 9:50 Excuse me Mathias but I have to interfere once more. I agree with you that "feeling seems to be determined by the appearance of the thing" -> When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; that is to say [...] with contact as condition, feeling; and that "explanations" like genetically programmed to feel in a certain way aren't really helpful. But when you say:
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 6 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' If I ask myself why a certain face appears beautiful (pleasant) to me, I can only say that this is the case because the face looks so and so. I have to point out that you're describing not only feeling but also perception and the thoughts and opinions which resulting from the appearance of a thing. It's important not to mix them up because this will lead to misunderstanding. A face which appears beautiful is already a perception and rating. It seems to be quite difficult not to mix them up, because it is said and it happens exactly this way in experience, that what one feels, one perceives, and that this can not be experienced apart from each other. So one has to be very careful in observing an experience to differentiate feeling from perception. A face appears beautiful because it looks so and so, because our perception and mental concepts resulting from that lead to the view that a certain face is beautiful, but this is not pure feeling. Feeling is the "first" or "underlying" initial, basic feeling of pleasantness, unpleasantness or neither-pleasantness-nor-unpleasantness which arises with contact as condition. There's no mental rating yet! There's mere feeling (+,-, neither-nor) and perception but no views (in fact not even concepts like pleasant, unpleasant, neither-nor only the basic feeling namly vedanā) or opinions like "beautiful", "ugly" and so on, that comes later. When one says: A face appears pleasant, only talking about feeling (vedanā), we cannot say, that this is because it looks so and so. Because that would be the explanation why one "perceives" a face as pleasant (conventional usage of perceive, in german "empfinden", I'm not meaning vedanā). I hope I made myself clear, if not just ask and I'll try to explain it in other words. best wishes, acinteyyo by Mathias on Sat 13 Nov 2010 - 10:58 acinteyyo wrote: Excuse me Mathias but I have to interfere once more. No need to excuse! You can of course "interfere" as much as you like (and thereby help to prevent the starvation of the forum). It was not my intention to describe only feeling or to reduce "beauty" to pure feeling. If I talk about a "beautiful face" it is (at least for me) quite obvious that not only feeling is involved but also the other aggregates/factors (like perception etc.). In my world there are only "complete things", so to speak - i.e. the "process of construction" is already finished. The beauty of a face certainly depends also on its significance or meaning, which involves rating and opinion (explicit or implicit) as you say. Without this there is not even a "face", not to mention a "beautiful face". In order for a beautiful face to be there, all constituents of a "beautiful face" must be present.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 7 'What determines vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neither?' With best wishes, Mathias by acinteyyo on Sat 13 Nov 2010 - 11:56 Ah... of course! Thanks for clearing this up best wishes, acinteyyo
I understand your post better now.