Page 2 of 2

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:53 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mike,

I don't deny that, but does the Buddha say that as a proximate cause for developing equanimity?

Two unconnected things have been twisted together by Buddhaghosa. I wonder if he understood equanimity beyond what he read and thought about it.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:54 am
by mikenz66
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:What are you referring to as "Buddhaghosa's method"?
Everything quoted from him to date in this topic, including what you just posted, is about how the practitioner feels about and regards other beings (and their kammic fate).
But Buddhaghosa didn't mention kamma at all in the passage I quoted. The "beings are heirs to their kamma" is from the Suttas. Buddhaghosa, as far as I understood, talked about not having any preference out of oneself, someone one likes, hates, or is neutral about.

Edit: He does mention it later. IX96...

Mike

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:56 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:But Buddhaghosa didn't mention kamma at all.
Buddhaghosa wrote:Equanimity is characterized as promoting the aspect of neutrality towards beings. its function is to see equality in beings. It is manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval. its proximate cause is seeing ownership of deeds (kamma) thus: "Beings are owners of their deeds. Whose (if not theirs) is the choice by which they will become happy, or will get free from suffering, or will not fall away from the success they have reached?"
- Visuddhimagga, (lX, 96)

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 12:01 pm
by PeterB
appicchato wrote:
PeterB wrote:...that in fact none of the BV's stand alone. None are ends in themselves. Metta without Upekkha can become a sentimental over identification with the other. Upekkha without Metta can lapse into indifference. And so on.

How do you see the issue Ven Appicchato ?
Well...I see (each of) the BV's quite able to stand alone...that they can (quite handily) be ends in themselves...metta is metta, with, or without, upekkha, and may, or may not, become a sentimental oversimplification with the other...and that upekkha, without metta, may, or may not, lapse into indifference...and so on...
Thank you Bhante...its food for thought.
On the surface that appears quite different to what i was taught. That could be for a number of reasons of course. WhatI I was taught could be wrong. ( I see no point in personalising the matter by going into by whom I was taught it ).Or I could have misunderstood what I was taught.
As I say..food for thought.

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 12:11 pm
by mikenz66
Hi Retro,
Mike
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:But Buddhaghosa didn't mention kamma at all.
Buddhaghosa wrote:Equanimity is characterized as promoting the aspect of neutrality towards beings. its function is to see equality in beings. It is manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval. its proximate cause is seeing ownership of deeds (kamma) thus: "Beings are owners of their deeds. Whose (if not theirs) is the choice by which they will become happy, or will get free from suffering, or will not fall away from the success they have reached?"
- Visuddhimagga, (lX, 96)
Yes, I missed that later quote, I was looking at his discussion of the development of concentration.

There may be two issues here:
1. What equanimity means.
2. Methods of development.

Perhaps we should be clear about what it means. Do you disagree with any of the definitions that have been quoted?

Mike

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 12:43 pm
by appicchato
PeterB wrote:WhatI I was taught could be wrong.
Maybe, maybe not...but that's the deal...would/could/should...just because I spout something doesn't mean anything...it's your (our) practice to reflect, consider, and contemplate every little thing...and while perhaps considering my take, in the end making your own decisions on the validity of what you (or I) espouse would seem to be the best way to formulate a doctrine to live by...

Re: Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:28 pm
by gssmn526
retrofuturist wrote: Thu May 06, 2010 10:10 am Greetings,

This verse...
All living beings are the owners of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.
... leaves me cold. People ignorantly do stupid things, and because they will suffer for that, we react with equanimity? Compassion seems a more apt response to such a tragic circumstance.
@Retro:

I see this phrase as useful for equanimity when a loved one is suffering, such as from addiction and is unwilling to do things that (I can see) would be helpful to ease their suffering. The acknowledgment is that their happiness is dependent on their actions and not my wishes for them. Since they own their own Karma, I am not responsible if I cannot save them despite my best intentions. Also works when Kids do dumb things that parents feel responsible for.

Just my 2 cents!

With Metta,

gssman526