UnbornTao

That sounds like painting with broad strokes. Identifying the plant as a "chrysanthemum" isn't a feeling; it may be a thought, or something else. Perceiving an object isn't feeling the object. Maybe we should drop the analogy and focus not on what feeling something in particular is but on what the activity of feeling is.

I don't mean that as the way you show up or behave, but the one that you are, which is really up for grabs. What unique role would that be? Don't people adopt various roles as they see fit, like the clothes that you wear? If you are indeed meant to play a unique role, what is that determined by? Who determines that? Trying to make a deeper point.

One's own epistemic scoundrelness is the ultimate example.

What is not feeling when encountering the plant?

I meant to post this here: Maybe your role is not who you are, and so it isn't something fixed or set.

OK, you might not have liked that, but I see it as realistic -- being sensitive and paying attention to what's going on. I can appreciate when someone is skillful and/or profoundly conscious; it just turns out that such a thing is rare or uncommon, especially in so-called "spiritual" communities. Also, the issue for us is discerning what's what. For example, Franklin Jones -- he was deeply conscious and seemed to have initially a nice community around him (although not without its problems). And now it is a full-blown cult. This seems to be a function of calling things by their name, and of the purpose a communication serves. No.

Isn't that stretching 'feeling' into something it is not? Seemingly "miraculous" abilities in feeling are indeed possible. As you said, being sensitive goes a long way -- like how an athlete can "sense" their surroundings and intuitively know what to do on the field at any given time. But that possibility is grounded on real principles and embodied skill. It seems you brought up concepts that would come to you by virtue of feeling the object. Wouldn't those be more conceptual activities? For instance, how would you know whether a plant is high in certain minerals or not just by feeling it?

Feeling the presence of the plant, you say that you know about it: What is it that you know? What is feeling giving you access to relative to what's there?

Sounds good. How are you holding knowing, in this case about the plant?

Anyone had an insight into feeling?

There's really no facilitation in her videos but a series of assertions and opinions made to be believed. It seems like she's running a cult. But people get lost in the assertiveness and such.

That seems to be the case (or do you sense a feeling?), though the difference may not be as straightforward as we make it out to be intellectually, hence the compound term. The experience of sitting comfortably on a cushion and, say, feeling at rest, tends to be a single muddy, vague experience for us, where the sensations of the body sitting and our feeling-state are one and the same. Sensation seems to be more primal and physical, consisting of a more "raw" perceptual encounter, and coming prior to feeling, while the latter may be a more conceptually-loaded effect, although it isn't an emotion -- yet?

@Salvijus @Eskilon Take a feeling you have right now -- if you pay attention, there's some sort of feeling-sensation present right now -- and investigate it for what it is.

It's perfectly fine; I was just pointing it out.

Go back to the drawing board. When we are feeling something, and it seems to be a pretty constant activity, although incredibly subtle at times, what is that about?

@Daniel Balan You might be slipping into an overly negative or nihilistic mindset, judging by the way you tend to post.

So something has to occur for it to take place, then. Physical sensations are a start, although sensation itself isn't feeling. In your example above, the shock at sensing electricity pulse through the body may be called feeling (or is it still sensation?), and the resulting worry would be an emotion, although that's another topic. To be clear, some people will hear "not existential" as an invalidation, likely to their belief system in this case, as if the thing were being called false. The assertion here, though, is that no activity is "true" -- it is not existentially the case, but rather comes to exist as a process. What process is that for "feeling"? What comprises feeling?

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"?