Proximate causes of the Brahma-vViharas

[mikenz66]

Accordingly, I think Patrick Kearney's method is far more satisfactory than Buddhaghosa's.

What are you referring to as "Buddhaghosa's method"? Interestingly, Visuddhimagga IX-88 ... doesn't mention the "beings are owners of their kamma..." approach.

In fact, since he discusses it in the context of concentration, he states that one should already have cultivated the first three jhana in the other three divine abidings. One then recognises that the joy cultivated in those jhanas is gross and needs to be abandoned to go further.

The instructions include to "...arouse equanimity by looking on with equanimity at a person who is normally neutral, then a dear person, ..., then through the neutral one he should break down the barriers in each case between the three people, that is, the dear person, then the boon companion, and then the hostile one, and lastly himself..."

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings bhante,

When the Blessed One has spoken the Dhamma so well, I cannot help but agree with your concerns regarding proliferation.

Extract from DN 21: Sakka-pañha Sutta
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/D ... /dn-21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"'Equanimity is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of equanimity, 'As I pursue this equanimity, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of equanimity is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of equanimity, 'As I pursue this equanimity, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of equanimity is to be pursued. And this sort of equanimity may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. 'Equanimity is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

why, oh why, do we have to add, subtract, and twist, so many, many, things that don't require (that I see) the doing so of?...

Metta,
Retro.

[appicchato]

...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...

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

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).

Other beings aren't the point... it's how we respond to circumstances, or more specifically to the five aggregates, the six senses and so on.

The thing I've been least equanimous about today was realising that I'd left my work pass at home. How does Buddhaghosa's method help with that?

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

These statements about beings being owners of their kamma is also in the Suttas:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Students, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"'I am the owner of my actions,1 heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...

Mike

[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.

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

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

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

But Buddhaghosa didn't mention kamma at all.

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.

[PeterB]

...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.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,
Mike

But Buddhaghosa didn't mention kamma at all.

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

[appicchato]

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...

[gssmn526]

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