Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘24.3 When the heart’s release by love has been developed and cultivated like this, any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist THERE’
This would appear to indicate that ‘any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist THERE'( capitals mine) refers to those deeds done in or in connection with the realm of the retinue of Brahma (realm 12) or, if taken more loosely, some other sphere or spheres beyond that, either singly or collectively.
I write this because of its (possible) connection to what Lal said in the post ‘Working towards good rebirths/kamma debt and meditation’ #8 ‘(Actually, the Buddha has said that if one does the Ariya metta mediation frequently, one could pay off the debts associated with the kamaloka (first 11 realms); more on that in a future post).’ NOW I AM IN NO WAY HINTING TO LAL TO COME UP WITH THAT NOW. I am well aware he has other more pressing matters at hand.
Now (24.2)’ a monk meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction,…everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world’….would be the PRACTICE, and (24.3)..’When the heart’s release by love has been developed and cultivated like this, any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist there.'(meaning the consequences or kamma vipaka of deeds that had been generated there) would be the CULMINATION or phala of Ariya Metta Bhavana.
So, although the practice of Ariya Metta Bhavana and the factors involved in that practice (a heart full of love,expansive, limitless, in all direction, no ill-will etc), where It has effect will depend on the intention or on the MENTAL direction as a particular objective, although spatially, that spreads out ‘in all directions’ in any case.
I welcome comments gratefully,
y not
Lal:
Now, THAT makes sense. Sorry you had to spell it out. I should have seen that.
(I had gotten a bit of it when editing at the end of the penultimate para.)
thank you.
y not
Lal:
“..2. When our Sun blows up in a few billion years, 10,000 other star systems in the vicinity are destroyed due to that blast. In modern science it is called a superrnova..”
So far as I have read, only stars with several times the mass of the Sun can go supernova; those with equal (yellow) or lower mass (orange and so down the spectrum) expand into red giants then collapse into white dwarfs. So it seems science has it wrong thus far on this issue.(??) Or has all of that, and more, been revised of late?
Also, since this one star, the Sun, will mean the destruction of the other 10,000 stellar systems nearby, it stands to reason than any one of those stars nearby could mean the end of this solar system here, IF our Sun is not the one to explode first. Why should it be this star, just because WE happen to be living on it, that is to cause the destruction of all the rest, and not that any one of those others be responsible instead for the cataclysm. The chances are, after all 10,000: 1 against.This is not speculation,Lal, it is logical inference. And it is not that the Sun is entitled to some priviliged status, because there are living beings there too,so much so devas and brahmas visit when a Buddha delivers a desana here. So it must follow that devas and brahmas from Earth visit planets of those stellar systems when Buddhas appear there. Still, the one consistent point would be: WHICHEVER STAR blows up first will cause the destruction of all the rest.
This tendency to attribute to the Earth, and everything connected with it ,all kinds of distinctions and special status annoys me. Why should we be special? Life is everywhere, literally, and infinite in extent, multiplicity and diversity.
y not
Lal:
Yes ,that is exactly how it is. The appropriate word (chanda) did not surface at the time, so I tried to make good for that by adding the phrase in brackets that followed.
I often have to look up again the difference in meaning between related Pali words. Using English instead is my way of by-passing that when too absorbed in typing, the sole aim being to get my idea across. But of course, that will not do really,because, as you have observed and pointed out, chances are that what is stated will be,strictly-speaking, simply INCORRECT.
I will make an effort to follow your advice.
Thank you
Embodied:
Yes I understood what you meant alright: if Nibbana WERE a causeless Being then people would cling to it all the more – as adherents of the world’s monotheistic religions cling to ‘God the Almighty’; and if it were so, where is the possibility of abandoning clinging? It would actually be re-enforced, if anything
My bringing in ‘the Highest’ (in the sentence in which I did) was to show that It would result only after having first battled against and abandoned clinging.
It seems to me we are at one about this, in spite of our different ways of putting it forward.
Metta
y not
Uyap:
No, no….you are not wasting my time. Not at all. My time is after all not a bit as prescious as that of some others on here.
I can sense that your intention is ‘to learn more from Lal whose has rare to find, blend of profound knowledge both science and dharma’ You do well. It is just that at times we are led away from our goal by our own thinking.
What I meant most of all is that one should pass thoughts as they arise through the first filter and then see whether the subject contemplated is worth any effort in pursuing; if so, how much of your time does it deserve. That is all.
Metta
y not
Uyap:
The Buddhas do not find the Dhamma out of curiosity. They had been ‘at it’,so to speak, for many aeons. Even Lal here must have done that for at least a number of lives before this one, otherwise how does it come about that he is so prepared to broadcast It now? And the ‘original spark’ cannot fall under curiosity either, for that spark must have arisen from the urge to know what is necessary to be known.
My advice is try to control the sense of curiosity; some questions we ask or even think through in our minds come under the wider sense of frivolous talk ( or frivolous thought, in this case, which leads to frivolous talk). That is why those who know do not even answer questions that spring from mere curiosity: it is a sheer waste of time for both of them.
Metta
y not
Embodied:
Lal says somewhere that clinging is of two types: the normal one for sense pleasures etc. and Nibbana (of course these are my own words).
The release from the first is difficult enough. I know for myself that I cannot even expect to aim for the Highest yet, for I am stuck somewhere in the beginning, at some stage in the beginning, and I can even say why. So I am taking it in stages, not even focusing on attaining Nibbana yet.
Do not influence yourself too much by that however – YOU aim for the Highest if you feel you are up to it.
y not
Hello Uyap
My bit as regards this topic:
Keep in mind that a scientist, even one considered ‘great’, discovers bit by bit. And sometimes theories have to be modified or even abandoned altogether. (Doubts have recently arisen about the Big Bang itself) Also,the ‘overall view’ or world view is not complete, it cannot be, because these are people working for the most part each in their own field.
The story of the Raj and the blind men saying that what was in fact an elephant was this or that or the other depending on which part of the elephant’s body each touched is very apt. The Buddhas SEE the whole of Reality as it is. Science discovers it bit by bit, by trial and error, observation and experimention to the best that the means of the times permit.
I myself had given a lot of thought about what you are saying, infinite universes in Infinity, whether some of us have lived on other planets other than this one…and so on. The point is, unless one KNOWS there will be no end to the endless cycle of reasoming, speculation, conjecture etc. But, ask yourself, to what purpose? What benefit to yourself and others ultimately?
The Buddhas reveal that which is necessary for us to know and to apply in order to free ourselves from suffering. There must be much much more that They know and did not reveal becuase all that, although true and part of Reality as well, will only serve as an obstruction, in the sense of it being a distraction from the IMPERATIVE task we are being called to here.
y not
Lal:
As to :
“One can only make CONDITIONS for another to, say receive merits, but that living being must have the right causes to receive them; see, “Transfer of Merits (Pattidāna) – How Does it Happen?“.’
I have read that post. There it is said , simply put, that the other must be open to receive whatever merits are intended to reach him/her. I do not recall any mention of CONDITIONS that one can make FOR THE OTHER in that respect. Can you please elaborate as much as you can on this? It is important for me.
thank you.
y not
Lal:
Thank you.
Are there any suttas where this ‘retrieving from bygone desanas* in relation to the various realms are given? Or is it not necessary? Will it be simply (as I infered) and supported by your ” Note that the lifetime in those realms is 500 Maha Kalpas;” that it is in strict relation to whether desanas had been uttered by a Buddha (on this planet or on one from a previous generation of it) throughout the life span of the beings there – 576 million, 2.304 billion for deva relams 9 and 10 for instance.
Paying FULL attention is one of my better charachteristics, Lal, to the point of being oblivious to what is going on around me. When I was learning German,for instance, the teacher once asked me (in German of course): Why is it you never take down notes like the others do ? My reply was (I did not have to think about it); If I do not understand when the teacher is explaining, how will I understand from my own notes at home? I am not bragging about it; it is just my nature. There are other traits, NOT so admirable – I have to work on those.
y not
Lal:
“Buddha Sasana (teachings of a given Buddha) disappears from the world (AMONG HUMANS)” Capitals mine.
Do you mean to say that it does not disappear in higher realms?? that it is still accessible there in line with the duration of life of the beings in those realms? Or am I reading too much into it?
y not
Hello ashish:
welcome!!My experience is this: going about your daily routines reflecting on a Dhamma concept, not exactly at the back of your mind, but being ever mindful of it, giving it all your inner attention,is meditation. At times insight into something you had not seen before comes in this manner.
I read only about an hour at a stretch, perhaps three or four hours in all at most in a single day. Never done meditation courses – I am averse to all laid-down techniques and instructions by my very nature. That may not be so with others – so see what others have to say as well.
And yes, a human life is VERY important -especially when there cannot be much of it left.
y not
Siebe:
‘If everybody becomes so reserved before acting, things become unnatural’.
and..
‘Please imagine a world in which there is no spontaniety anymore but everybody reflects on any deed before acting.’Rashness, unmindfulness, thoughtlessness, heedlessness.. these we call the spontaneity we should have applied when our actions through the opposites of those qualities did not bring about the desired result.
Is this what you are getting at?
“…suffering does not arise only due to our actions, but there is the mind of the other person too.”
It is true that ‘we are all connected’, so our thoughts must affect others, as much as those of others must affect ours, but HOW INTENSE AND PROLONGED must they be to bring into doubt what Lal says that ‘we cannot SIGNIFICANTLY affect another by our thoughts’
y not
Lal said:
“Only a trace is matter (rupa) exists there: the hadaya vatthu OF those beings” (Capitals mine)
So the beings are not the hadaya vatthu. They only have it. Is that what is meant? In that case, by what other names or descriptions are the beings themselves, as distinct from and beyond the hadaya vatthu, refered to in Buddhadhamma?
y not
