Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation
- Hi Alan,
I am glad we have been able to disagree amicably, and I hope you will
find the information you are looking for. You won't get it
from me, though. :-)
A: > As much as I appreciate your intent to be helpful, I have to say
I am approaching all of this in a different way. I have worked with
teachers whom I greatly admire. When you say that what they teach,
which is the "common practice of metta meditation," does not work, I
have to object. To me they are living proof that it does work because
they are amongst the kindness and most loving people I have ever met.
You are not alone in wanting to be a kind-hearted person. Many DSG
members share that ambition. Others of us, however, are trying to
understand that kind-heartedness is just a fleeting, conditioned
dhamma. Ultimately, there are no people who have kind-heartedness or
any other characteristic - there are only dhammas.
> Because these teachers are Burmese and Vietnamese (some things aregood
> lost in cross cultural communication), because I do not have the
> fortune to have them readily accessible, and because of my ownI
> limitations, I have had to seek out clarification of issues that
> arisen for me by other means. This is why I have posted here. What
> hope to obtain here is some clarity about some fine points withcommitted
> respect to what I assume is the "orthodox" practice to which I have
> been exposed. I am not seeking a whole new practice. I am
> to the one I am pursuing.
- Hi Robert
> It still doesn't make sense to me that having *any* view of "anotherthe
> sentient being" could ever be kusala, given that it is a delusion.
> Having kusala metta arise for a delusory concept of a person would
> seem to be wishing non-suffering to a source of suffering, namely
> very illusion of self that we are trying to gain release from.Would you mind clarifying what you mean by a "view of "another
sentient being"". Do you mean just any idea at all? If so that
would suggest that most people's day was filled with wrong view.
As I understand it there is a distinction to be made between the
concept of a being and the view that beings are 'real' in the
ultimate sense. The former does not necessarily imply the latter.