If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one’s breast, becomes distraught, then one’s patighanusaya underlies etc….” If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one’s raganusaya underlies. With contact as condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure (sukha), pain (dukkha), or neither pleasure nor pain (adukkhamasukha). “Dependent on the mano & dhamma there arises consciousness at the mano. (following the same five-fold analysis with forms, sounds, smells, tastes and tactility…) Very pointedly, suttas such as MN 137 and MN 148 assert that domanassa flow, not just from dukkha vedana based on kayasamphassa (contact based on the 5 senses) but includes manosamphassa dukkha vedana.
Both SN 36.6 and MN 148 use “sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught” to denote domanassa. MN 137 uses the technical term “domanassa” whereas MN 148 is more to the point when it uses the same stock formula for domanassa that is used in SN 36.6. It certainly does seem to be a very standard distinction (even Ven Analayo subscribes to this) but perhaps you could give me your views about how the Sallathena Sutta SN 36.6 treats domanassa as a cetasika vedana in light of suttas such as MN 137 and MN 148. I’m just not sure if I can agree with the way you have sought to distinguish the kayika vedana (“bodily” feelings) from the cetasika vedana (mental “feelings”). (and I’ll try to read your White Bones essay) Where exactly can we slot these emotions in the 5 Aggregates scheme, or was the 5 Aggregates scheme intended for a different soteriological purpose? Ie domanassa consequent to a dukkha vedana arising. “sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught” Would it be outrageous if I read “emotions” as alluding to what the Sallatha Sutta SN 36.6 calls the “cetasika vedana” that are the sequel to the kayika vedana which are pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feelings? SN 36.6 uses 3 standard pericopes to describe these “cetasika vedana”. Ven Analayo packages “emotions” into citta, but I have to confess that I really cannot understand what citta means other than its English translation as Mind (which is equally mysterious). I mention this especially, because I’m a little puzzled by and very curious about the space occupied by “emotions” in the 5 Aggregates schema. Harrison alludes to the deautomatisation of behavioural responses to stimuli, suggesting that parents too will be doing their kids a favour if they signed up for BPT. Not only do the cognitive functions benefit, Bhante. And we could all do with a bit more of that! Studies like this one show that a peaceful, happy mind from meditation helps develop and support essential cognitive functions: memory, clear thinking, imagination. Or at least, they do in a healthy mind: an opposition or disconnect between the two is a sign of illness. Recent psychology has moved away from this, and now it is generally accepted that emotion and reason support each other. Strangely enough, this dichotomy has been imported into modernist Buddhism as the split between samatha and vipassana, a split which, I believe, was a product of traditional Buddhist cultures’ response to the western colonial influence. This contrasts with the tendency in western thought to make ’emotion’ and ‘reason’ into enemies. The Buddha was perhaps the first teacher to stress how the emotions and intelligence were interconnected and needed to support each other. Most of our scientific study of meditation to date has focussed on the emotional side – meditation leads to peace and happiness. More fundamentally, however, it speaks to the basic Buddhist tenet that meditation leads to wisdom. This is interesting in the context of our current situation regarding teaching Buddhism in schools in NSW. However, it also says that there has not yet been enough studies to conclude that meditation will directly improve test results. It concludes that there is substantial evidence that meditation is useful for the student in general, and little or no evidence that it is not. Here’s an academic literature review that looks at whether meditation is helpful in an academic environment.