RE: Re: [dsg] Mettaa (was:RE: ) more additions.
- Hi Nina,
Thanks again for writing! I have a quick response to something you posted:Dear Tam, James and all,
I just listen to K.K. June '13. I heard that Kh Sujin asked: <Do you think you can have right understanding without understanding seeing right now?>Kh Sujin will speak about seeing and that which is seen very often, because when we understand more of these we shall also understand other dhammas such as mettaa, we shall understand that there is no one there.
James: I disagree with this observation from K.K. or K.Sujin, whoever. You cannot have metta for someone who isn't there. That isn't possible. The emotion of metta is for a person or a living being, not a dhamma. For example, no matter how hard I might try, I cannot have metta for the sound of a bell. The sound of the bell is just a neutral sound. Now, I might mentally associate the sound of the bell with a person and then experience metta, but if there is no association there won't be any metta.
The Brahmaviharas must always be manifest and expressed toward living beings...or at least that is my understanding. If you know something different from the Abhidhamma please let me know.
Much appreciation to you for your work with the Dhamma!
- Pt, if everyone knew how to do them they wouldn't be so cool anymore. *･゜ﾟ･*:.｡..｡.:*･'(*ﾟ▽ﾟ*)'･*:.｡. .｡.:*･゜ﾟ･*＼(^o^)／☆*:.｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆＼(^o^)／＼(^o^)／Phil P.s Thanks for the link to the mobile device troubleshooting page. (´･_･`)