Lal:
“… one could have relationships without asavas (lobha, dosa, moha)” and,
“…Gatikara, who was an Anagami. He stayed a lay person rather than becoming a bhikkhu, because he wanted to take care of his old parents.”
I therefore take it that genuine concern for another does not constitute an aksuala, but there is still miccha ditthi (?), for Lal says in the post ‘…if you were to die tomorrow’: ‘.. one gets rid of all wrong views only at Arahanthood’. In that post I asked some question connected to the first quote above, and Lal replied that ANY kind of attachment is miccha ditthi.
I admit I am confused about this. In the case of Gatikata, would it be that he renounced Arahanthood ( where all attachment ceases) for the sake of caring for his parents, perhaps even into future lives? The question, at the very base of it, is: How can attachment when it is through genuine and unselfish love for some one be of any negative or hindering effect to the giver IN ANY WAY whatsoever? ( I use no Pali words in the question to make sure that there is no misunderstanding through my inadequate command of distinguishing between Pali terms)
….the first quote above seems to answer this conclusively but reading through other posts, it does not. It could be a very subtle kind of lobha(unknown to oneself) because one derives pleasure caring for his parents (in the case 0f gatikara) or loving genuinely in other cases.
Thank you,
y not