Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59727Re: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta

Expand Messages
  • sarah abbott
    May 24, 2006
      Dear Joop,

      --- Joop <jwromeijn@...> wrote:
      > Hallo Sarah
      > An (any) accumulation of cittas or cetasikas is not a ultimate
      > reality for two reasons:
      > - it is not arising and falling away within some milli-seconds
      > - it does not occur on the list of 89/121 cittas+52 cetasikas+28
      > rupas+1 nibbana
      > It is not ultimate as a accumulation; you say "it REFERS to to all
      > cittas and cetasikas"; yes: but it IS not a citta or cetasika, isn't
      > that correct?
      S: My understanding is that an accumulation is a citta or cetasika, i.e an
      ultimate reality. Take attachment now - it's real. It's also an
      accumulation. We don't have to use any particular word, but when
      attachment arises, it 'piles up' or accumulates, like DSG posts!

      > So it must be a concept.
      > OR it belongs to a third class of realities, together with 'kamma'
      S: Kamma is also an ultimate reality. Each cetana arising now is 'kamma'.
      Those cetanas arising with the javana cittas have a dual function of not
      only 'co-ordinating' other mental factors, but also of 'willing' kusala or
      akusala. In some instances, this cetana may be powerful enough to bring
      results later on. No matter what kind of cetana or kamma it is, it's still
      an ultimate reality.

      I agree that the terms 'kamma' and 'accumulation' as used in conventional
      speech are not representing precise realities.

      > About #58095 ("On spice and paradoxes") Only a remark on your last
      > words: "Often such paradoxes arise because of our very limited
      > understanding."
      > J: That's possible but you seem to suppose that a paradox is
      > something unpleasant, something to devoid: not to me.
      > You say "A desire to give up desires is lobha"; and I add: it is also
      > a logical paradox in the way Bertrand Russell talked about. But of
      > course ging up desires is more important that logic.
      S: Good points. Yes, a paradox may not be bad! Sometimes wholesome chanda
      is also translated as 'desire' (rather inaccurately imho). So it may be
      wholesome chanda to give up desire which is being referred to, as in the
      SN sutta I referred to recently in my posts on 'Any cheers for
      Tanha.....'. (Your comments would be welcome on that too:-)).

      Thanks for these clarifications and comments, Joop.


      p.s Could you v.briefly elaborate on your Bertrand Russell comment above
      in context. My father was a great B.R. fan, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
      anything I ever read which wasn't much.
    • Show all 107 messages in this topic