UnbornTao

But what is feeling -- one's experience of it?

At that point why would you contemplate what anything is? Whatever's true must be investigated on its own terms. The question here is: What is feeling? In any case, a feeling isn't your car, or a body, or a vacation. In your experience, you already live with these being distinct.

Here comes the absolute again, uninvited. Different words are used for a reason. We live in the relative. A body is different from boredom which is different from yourself, etc. A feeling isn't experienced as not-feeling. We live as having different experiences, which are in part determined or shaped by what they are not. When we feel joyful, we don't say we are experiencing a tree, or hunger, or the color blue. We say we are having a distinctive, particular experience called "joy", even though we might resort to our beliefs or to intellectual games to avoid acknowledging what's experienced "as is". Even the feeling "X" itself is an interpretation. Not saying this is the case for you, but it happens.

I didn't say anything about "temporary" or "distraction". What exists as itself is what exists as itself. Here we're dealing with feeling as an activity. It is a distinction that we make and experience as something in particular. What would you feel if you ate a rock? That would be equally absolute, but your feeling-state would also likely be different in that case than when eating an absolute banana.

Exists as an activity, not as a fact of the universe. How could it be existential? That it is produced in the first place suggests that it doesn't exist on its own accord. The same could be said of, say, suffering. The fact that it is commonly shared and experienced doesn't make it existential. Again, existence is what exists as itself; process and activity require action and steps and to be carried out within time. Without living beings, where would we find "feeling"? Take away the body or a given perceptive organ, and no feeling can occur.

"Since you pointed to some physical sensations, notice that some sort of body has to be there for feeling to occur -- it doesn't occur in a vacuum." You feel a certain way now, and new feelings keep coming up with each moment. Your feeling state is continuously shifting. A sunset has a warming, comforting effect on you, so you feel joy as a result. A dog furiously barks at you, and you feel fearful. Doesn't the above point to an activity, something we do? The central element there is yourself, plus what you take the circumstances to mean to you. You may think a rock is beautiful, and so have a positive-feeling association with it. Another person might be disgusted at that same rock, even though the object remains unchanged. The feeling occurs in one's experience. A body and perceptive organs seem to be a prerequisite for feeling to occur, as well as, well, being alive.

Perhaps. Since you pointed to some physical sensations, notice that some sort of body has to be there for feeling to occur--it doesn't occur in a vacuum. Where do you find "feeling"?

Feeling isn't existential -- it isn't a fact of the universe, but rather an something generated, an activity. What that is is up for grabs. Wanting to feel good shouldn't be confused with being honest. This doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive -- they're just different pursuits, each with different goals.

The trick starts with differentiating between: how you want to see yourself how you see yourself how you think others see you how you want others to see you how you are actually seen by others Or something along those lines -- I might tweak the list further.

Distinctions that are quite tricky to make: Consciousness, on the one hand, and awareness, on the other.

Wrong Krishnamurti. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

A suggestion: turn it into an open question, without filling in the blanks.

That could work, too. Reminds me of one time when on truffles. I looked at my hand and was astounded by what it was, and by the fact that it was there, somehow considered mine.

You can simply tell them you'd rather have some quiet time, or at least make it count: ask them good questions and the chatting could be more fruitful and enjoyable for both.

Teach the material, even if only to yourself, and notice how much of it arises from personal experience versus intellect. Use this as a practice to make the work real for you.

It omitted some important details but it is manageable now!

It depends on your goals, but a good one is: Gently pay attention to the breath, or to a physical sensation that is rather constant, like the tip of your fingers touching. When you notice you've gotten distracted, immediately bring attention back to the object of your focus. It is useful to keep the practice dynamic instead of mechanical, letting what arises to be fully experienced. Or do nothing facing a wall and see what comes up.

It is useful not to think of it as an ideal called "Truth." Just: What is true at any level? What is ultimately or absolutely true, and also what is true regarding X or Y, such as experience, relationships, skill, your field of work, emotions, etc. True as what is.

Because it is what's true. What else?

This seems to apply to any model, in the sense that none are true in and of themselves, but some can be useful. As a simplistic analogy: We can categorize every variety of apple and create an intricate model of their distinctive traits, yet this effort doesn’t provide access to what the object is, nor does it change our fundamental relationship to it. More concepts are added to the experience, which is further from the presence of it, if getting closer to it is our goal. Besides, we tend to confuse proficiency in the workings of the model with an experience of the things that are being referred to, which is much easier to do than experiencing things for yourself.

Sounds like a sensible decision.