Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lal:
I am all BUT offended!
Exactly as you put it: ‘it is EASY to have a peaceful mindset when one is in formal meditation. Anusaya is suppressed’
Most of these outbursts of anger I used to experience when I was still marrried. My wife was very provocative. Sometimes 15’…30′ then up blows the top. (Now I am not putting the anger in my gati down to her by any means). At one time I ended up in hospital with a dislocated finger. I punched whatever was in sight until I was tired (!)rather than hitting her, my father’s words ringing in my ear: never lay your hands on a woman!
thank you Lal;
very instructive topicy not.
………the web page just disappeared and I was greeted with an ‘An snap’just when I hit submit (my last post)
I was V EEEEEEEEEE RY angry!!!!
I have lost entire posts I wanted to submit because of that’
Lal:
In answer to your request:
When I am observing mindfulness no thoughts of greed, hate or anger arise at all as far as I remember. There is no fight going on at any time.
And by mindfulness I mean being absorbed in a Dhamma concept or doing A M Bhavana. Others may have taken what I mean by ‘mindfulness’ to be something else. If I should be using some other term (so to avoid misunderstandings) please say so.
This may not be a coincidence, for as far back as I remember, I always used to feel very angry at being interuppted when I was concentrating or immersed even in a mundane exercise, say at work. At least here I am not.
y not
Johnny:
A comment on your first entry here.
If one starts off with the contemplation of any one of the three, the other two will follow. They are three aspects or manifestations of one thing really.
My own experience is this: seeing the anicca nature, (1) and the suffering that that causes through the sense of unsatisfactoriness and therefore the disappointment that is there (2) can this be what ultimate existence is all about EVENTUALLY? (3). And the suffering here is only the one we experience now in this life, not the dukkHA that extends into future lives, the contemplation of which strengtens the relevance and meaning of Anatta even more.
In my case,it is seeing the Anatta nature in its sense of imperfection that comes naturally. 3) first, followed by 2), and then then 1). But the three are really one.
As a child I used to ask, myself and others: ‘Where is perfection? everything I see here is imperfect’ The reply from my parents ran something like: ‘ are YOU perfect?’ Naturally, I knew I was not. The implication of course was: first become perfect yourself, then you will find that Perfection. So with me, even then, the first I saw was the Anatta nature, without of course refering to it by that word.
Now all that has come to have meaning AND purpose.
y not
Johnny:
‘Should’ is a big word even for one on the Path, let alone for this girl who, I take it, is not.
y not
Embodied:
My understanding is what Donna means is that practically anything that comes in the way of mindfulness is a hindrance. I do not see how you can ‘include a distraction in your mindfulness’ when that very distraction is the obstacle to that mindfulness.
Or did you mean something else?
What I have found out, for my part, is that when a possible distraction is already there (the tv or the radio on) it does not ACT as a distraction. Most times by far,I can carry on with my ‘mindfulness’ as if there were complete silence all around. No effort is needed – I do not have to turn the tv or radio off to continue being mindful.
y not
Johnny:
I was refering specifically to the game of charging money for telling people who they were in previous lives by: “It is amazing how people do not see through the game’
You made a life lesson of it.
thank you.
y not
Thank you Donna. You are most welcome.
Thank you Lal,
Your reply is much as I expected. I had read the relevant posts,and more than once, so nothing new there. That is not to detract though from your kindness in taking the time to answer, let that be quite clear.
Of late I have been thinking of the apayas a lot, and thinking is putting it mildly. Hence my digging into posts that concern processes and ways to eliminate them or, at least, to not let them come to fruition for myself and for others. Obviously ‘others’ has two meanings:those I know and love, and all other sentient beings in the whole of existence, whose suffering cannot be any different from that felt by those I love. I realise that this dichotomy can only be due EXCLUSIVELY to attachment, and as I cannot recall past lives, the attachment can, in my case, be only to those I have known in this life.
“Dukkham bhayattena” – This phrase has been occuring to me often these last few days, and like that, in Pali. This dread of the apayas, the niraya in particular, made me go back to instances in my life where I acted, spoke or even had thoughts that may lead there. There surely will be more, many more, rooted in previous lives, and that is one reason I have long stopped wishing I could see into those. The other reason is that if I came across a life in which my lot was better than it is in this one, regret would follow: ‘then I was so, now I am only this!’; if worse,there would be disappointment to various degrees, if not horror and incredulity: ‘what? I was that?’. In either case, no instruction would be forthcoming about what action to take NOW. And this is my main concern: how to avoid those states for myself and others,if it were possible, and to find ways that reconcile both objectives into one.
I have noticed that’Seeing past lives’ too has been commercialized on the internet almost to a fad. Years back a female friend of mine said to me enthusiastically: ‘you know what? I was Cleopatra!’ It is always someone popular, a king, a queen, a rock star..It is amazing how people do not see through the game. But life is no game. And the realization that WORSE may be on the way….
I heartily welcome any replies…comments, rather.
Lal’s reply is quite satifactory.y not
Hello Inflib
Hello Lal:I was tempted to comment on (rather than answer) your question when no replies were given yet, but I did not want you and others to be in any way misled even by that. So I waited.
The first ‘answer’ that came to mind was: if the kamma vipaka is overwhemingly strong, the results will take effect as soon as the right conditions arise. Otherwise…’ As one proceeds on the Path and comprehends, acts, speaks and thinks with the anicca (dukkha and anatta as well) nature ‘ those are in themselves causes and MAY bring effects even to the present situation(s); if not, then they will do so certainly later on when the right conditions arise.
Now having read Lal’s answer and again read the post “What is Kamma? – Is Everything Determined by Kamma?, there reference is made, in #5 ,to
‘ “Transfer of Merits (Pattidāna)- How Does that Happen?” and “5. Ariya Metta Bhavana (Loving Kindness Meditation)“. In the first post, that to do with Pattidana, there is benefit for the other because merits are actually transferred to him/her. In Ariya Metta Bhavana, how is the receiver benefitted? IS there a receiver, receivers? Here, the loving-kindness, the Metta, wells up in the one doing the Bhavana,the ‘state of overall well-being and oneness’ and all the positive and beneficial effects of it would all appear to be for the meditator. Or is it otherwise? Or, again, is it like I say AND also otherwise?Crudely stated, Metta Bhavana WOULD appear to be selfish. I have been practicing it and there is no doubting the benefits FOR MYSELF. More important issues follow from all of this, but the answer may make most of that irrelevant. (….an answer like: treading the Path IS a selfish thing; Nibbana is a selfish goal..etc, in that it is ARIYA Metta Bhavana, a Bhavana for Ariyas, and an Ariya’s ONLY goal is Nibbana,clearly a selfish goal, while as to Pattidana, no reference is made whether it is Ariya or riya, so the latter must be implied).
y not
Johnny:
Perfect answer. And Lal goes on to ‘beef it up’ on his part.
The perfect answer is always from the highest standpoint; only, it is clear I have not reached there yet. I knew it must be so, but why SHOULD it be so ,not otherwise? And to THAT I expect no answer.
Metta to all,
y not
Thank you Lal,
A long way to go. Will do my best to better my lot and others’
along the way (in the Ariya sense). I have made this my resolve.Ever so grateful,
y not
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
Johnny:
As I see it, Buddha Gotama wanted to see or review the ‘karmic connections’ he was involved in throughout those mahakaplas, for the very practical reason of the balancing out of debts he had with beings throughout that time. He could go further back, but there was no point. He KNEW there was no beginning.
Buddha Kassapa would have done the same, as would the other Buddhas that preceded him. However back any One of Them would have gone, He would not have gone back to the ‘first mahakalpa’ or the ‘first Budddha’, because there cannot be a first mahakalpa and a first Buddha. Otherwise a Buddha would remain there until death, derelicting His duty (Self-imposed) of preaching the Dhamma. That would hold for all Buddhas in all planetary systems, all galaxies and all universes.
Metta
y not
Embodied:
‘….why is that the Buddha mentioned often ” the Unborn “/Deathless (or translated as such) ?
He was refering to Nibbana. Which is the goal we all have to stive for.
In existence we are already, but Nibbana we have not reached yet. So the Buddha’s message goes way beyond philosophy, whose goal is to explain Existence, while the Buddha’s Message is how to free oneself from all the suffering there.may you attain that Peace,
y not
Embodied:
The Buddha could see no ‘discernible’ beginning; that is, as far back as he went, he saw no beginning. So many days and nights he went back and still no beginning. And had he gone back and back, not for days, but to this very day, he would still have seen no beginning, because there IS no beginning. This is what I make out by ‘no discernible beginning'(by a Buddha, note well).
See…how CAN there be a beginning? We are talking about Existence. If Existence did have a beginning, out of what would it emerge? It could possibly have emerged either from another existing thing (which is Existence as well) or from non-existence. So, it would emerge either from Itself (which would be just a progression of the same, one Existence) or from nothing, which is impossible. So it is well said in the Upanishads that there is no origination in any way whatsoever – and I add, possible or imaginable.
I do not see how the gandhabba(s) come into all of this. Yes, we are one, but I do not see the rest of it with the gandhabba as the connection.
Metta
y not
