I was just thinking how my whole life is centered around my senses and ways on how i can pleasantly stimulate them. I listen to music and for some reason certain music sounds better and makes me feel differently. but how does just sound make one feel different? Excluding music with words because words in my opinion stimulate more the sense of the mind as well as sound which is to me a whole other sense in itself but whatever somehow the world only counted our exterior senses as the definite 5 senses. Anyway i eat and i'm the type of person who doesn't so much eat when my stomachs hungry but when my mind and tongue are hungry for stimulation. and i thin cravings show how our senses are hungry for stimulation. Moving on to the fact that we all like looking at whatever sex where interested in naked. it stimulates our sense of sight which stimulates the mind into stimulating future touch and when that times comes we live for that stimulation of touch. the stronger your senses our stimulated the more pleasure you receive like smelling good food and anticipating even more stimulation. all the senses our connected and we live to live through them. if we lost all our 5 senses the only one that would remain IN MY OPINION is our mind and then our sense of pleasure dies and we live in prison, unless if we move on to ""another world"" where we tap into new senses that we have yet to learn or discover. If anyone can shine me some light on how pleasure is derived from our senses or if it even is i would appreciate it. But it seems like our senses is all we are and without them what are we? where are we? and with them, what are we? where are we?
Its a hormone response. Something positive happens, reward hormones release. You percieve this as satisfaction/happyness. Also note that your senses arent the only thing that stimulates reward responses. If you sucessfuly finish a project, you feel a sense of accomplishment. This is the same. Yes you need senses to percieve it, but you are not directly stimulating these senses for pleasure. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Anyway i eat and i'm the type of person who doesn't so much eat when my stomachs hungry but when my mind and tongue are hungry for stimulation. and i think cravings show how our senses are hungry for stimulation. No your stomach is making noises becuase its holding less substance as per usual. Its comminicating "im fking hungry! your still masterbating!!!
... but do not kill feeling. For knowing the truth is more of a feeling than an extinguishing of self. “The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.â€
Oxytocin is released as a "reward" of sorts. This is why when you hear music you love, your spine tingles and you feel warmth. Very simple.
Kill duality. The feeling remains, yet we are not attached too and desirous of some whilst avoiding others. Kill the ego in a sense.
Killing duality is a paradox, friend. One cannot efface subjectivity in subjectivity. Your apprehension of the one, or "truth", is an internal action, an internal discernment; that is, your internal or internality, and nobody else's. Dvaita is ineffacable. "Īśvara is the cause of the world, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, just and wholly transcendent being. Madhva has Īśvara straddle various contradictions in the description of Brahman by semantic interpretation. For example, for the notion that 'Īśvara both has forms and is formless, and is both qualified and unqualified,' Madhva explains it in the following way. Īśvara is endowed with forms because he has a body of knowledge and bliss, but is formless because he has no body that can be circumscribed by a finite mind. <i>Īśvara</i> is qualified because he possesses the six qualities of omniscience (<i>JñÄna</i>), sovereignty (<i><span>AiÅ›varya</span></i>), omnipotence (<i>Åšakti</i>), endurance, or the capacity to support everything by will and without any fatigue (<i>Bala</i>), vigour, or the power to retain immateriality as the supreme being in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations (<i>VÄ«rya</i>) and splendour, or self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by his spiritual effulgence (<i>Tejas</i>), but unqualified because he is entirely free of material adjuncts. <i>Īśvara</i> chooses to save some souls while condemning others to eternal existence within <span>saṃsÄra</span>."
And, in regards to the OP's question... pleasure or pain is derived from two dialectics. Physical-sensate and, or, psychical-sensate.
You are saying that non-duality is not a state of value because it is experienced subjectively? If so you make it obvious you haven't experienced it. Your own karma leads you to enumerate the greatness of a separate creator. You distance yourself from truth, the one truth, your truth. Non-duality means no me and you. It means no right and wrong. It means seeing for what it is and placing no value in one state over another. Extinguish the flame of your karma.
O, you Buddhists! Nihilists par excellence. No one spoke of value, if you were to follow my statement correctly, you would see that I posit subjectivity as the instrument or vessel needed for discerning and apprehending truth. You cannot be outside of your body when you experience that enrapturing feeling you call liberation, or "ego-death", only if you were suggest that "you" are not your material body, or are separate from it, would your idea of liberation, in such a sense, be coherent. Dvaita does not place value on the differentiation between finite things, but only on the value of the self who has the power or will to experience the fruits of separating falsity from veracity. "Non-duality means no me and you. It means no right and wrong. It means seeing for what it is and placing no value in one state over another. Extinguish the flame of your karma." -- And yet, you value extinguishing the flame more than letting it burn... but that's a given, right? "Denying the world is as good as denying God's own infinite greatness. We should all dedicate ourselves to our duty in the following spirit: 'We are all subjects in the kingdom of God; rendering assistance to those who are in distress is the tax we owe to God Himself, our king'."
What does it mean to be a Buddhist? I don't particularly define myself as such.To call me nihilist would be false, to define me in any concrete way would be false, but in this case far more so. You seem to have something to prove, an idea that I'm not particularly interested in bringing up, yet when speaking with you, it always seems like you try to make that the theme. This separation between spirit and matter. You say that to experience the deathless state of unencumbered consciousness the existence of a separateness from body is necessary, but that is absolutely not the case by any means. What defines your existence, your ability to comprehend that you are a being separate from the world around you, is every experience you've ever had and the attachments you have formed as a result. The primary producer of experience is the senses. All of which are rooted in the body. Nirvana, enlightenment, immortality, sunn samaadh. These sublime states are result of experiencing the lack of existence, it is of experiencing a lack of outside influence, from both senses and mind. What is this spirit you speak of? It's just as much an illusion as this physical world. Beggar yourself to truth and step upon the path, the flower blooms only if the lord wills it. The flame? We provide the fuel. Habit. We keep it burning. True non-action shall cause it to extinguish and in calm stillness the true reality will manifest.
1.) This separation, as you presume, has not to do with an ontological disparity; rather, more so, it has to do with epistemlogical awareness and perspective. Man possesses a two-fold knowledge of actuality, a perpspective into, or of, the inner, and a perspective of, or into, the outer. So, "matter" or the "body" is nothing other than a budle of perceptions inhering within a mind, a spirit, a consciousness, who is exposed to the perspective of an inner vantage point of the outer (as they say, it's all relative to a perceiver). Furthermore, let's be clear, I, a mind, a perceiver, have, or the self has, perceptions and experiences, and, the I, or self, is distinct from its perceptions and experiences, as a pain is distinct from the subject in pain (or the subject who has pain). And yet you dare to say the senses are the prime grounding for our experience of actuality, and that the senses are rooted in the body? How can an intangible thought or concept, without spatial form, be rooted in tangible and spatially extended matter? Riddle me this, how can the materially composite senses experience an unempirical and uncomposite thought? Obviously then, the senses or the body cannot be the causes or producers of our experiences of the world, of actuality, for, if they were, then they would be the causes and producers of themselves! That is to say, they would not, in fact, be causes or producers at all. Therefore, matter, a corporeal mass, or extended substance, is not the ground for reality. And, to add, if the physical world is an illusion, which includes the empirical senses and your body, then how can you conclude so surely that there is truth beyond the illusion itself? Obviosuly you must be utilizing something non-physical to entertain such an IDEA, that is, if all physicality is inherently fallacious and illusory. For, if you navigated through the darkness of this illusion using something physical, like your senses and the body, how are you so sure you haven't been lead into more illusion and folly? P.S. Non-action is an action in-and-of-itself, i.e., willing to non-action is still willing. Deny yourself all you want, yet, don't forget, denying the I positively is self-refuting. For, who refutes this "I", if not I? Refraining from burning fuel, requires fuel to do so (this latter fuel being allotted to an I or self by the eternal Flame who cannot be extinguished).
I'm going to make this simple. Can you have any experience whatsoever without perception? The infinite and the limited coincide because that is our existence. I simply say look to the infinite instead of the limited. You talk of the spirit but you've shared zero understanding of what it is. Understand what the Naad is. What the Logos is. What the Word is. What the Shabad is. We are packets of information that aren't separate from what surrounds us, but our experience is defined by an invisible boundary. That which we call the body. You haven't felt what the universe is. You've been stuck on the same shit for a while now. Buck up and move forwards or forever remain rooted to foolishness. I can tell you what to study, but I can't teach you personally. Study firstly the tao, and firstly also, the notion of the vibratory nature of matter, of existence. Yin and Yang. Maya. The three modes, and the transcendent 4th. Non-action is not an action. Don't be a fool and don't be confused. Non-action is the womb of action. Do you want to understand God? Understand emptiness. Until then, you are a slave to a lesser god, a fool who wallows in the "positive". If you still adhere to the belief of good and evil then you're a greater fool than I expected. Prove me wrong.
"Can you have any experience whatsoever without perception?" -- Note, it's important to differentiate between sensory-perception and mental-perception. "Understand what the Naad is. What the Logos is. What the Word is. What the Shabad is." -- Without intuition, or the mind, they're merely words. "We are packets of information that aren't separate from what surrounds us, but our experience is defined by an invisible boundary. That which we call the body." -- Bodies aren't invisible. How much weed do you smoke? As Madhva would say, "It is important to note that in supra-sensory matters, nothing can be established by inference or reasoning independently. For, anything one desires can be established by reasoning. Those who do not possess this awareness can establish nothing by the strength of their reasoning. Therefore in regard to supra-sensory facts and especially, in regard to God, there is no use in one's surrendering oneself to reasoning." -- Note, reasoning is not a physical acitivity; willing cognitively is not of physical or material agency.
Differentiate then. One perceives the mind primarily. What is mind? What is mind without the senses? Without intuition and mind, then nothing is understood and nothing is perceived, They are not even words. That doesn't mean you don't attempt to understand what they signify. Never said bodies aren't invisible, in fact I said the very opposite. The boundary disappears and the body dissipates, the various elements returning to the world. The elements do not constitute us, yet everything we consider to constitute us would not, if not or the way these elements shaped themselves into our human forms. Or the cosmos in their form. Discard reasoning, enter the sunn samaadh, enter the deathless and infinite state of nirvana. I'm not saying what you think I am. You're arguing with a ghost. You simply don't believe that the things I am saying are true by your own understanding. They are. Don't limit yourself.
"One perceives the mind primarily. What is mind? What is mind without the senses?" -- Well, seeing as one doesn't perceive the mind with their empirical senses, i.e., one doesn't sensorily-perceive their mental states, the empirical senses are in no position, whatsoever, to determine what the mind is. One doesn't perceive a mind, one is a mind that perceives.