Hi friend, what's your opinion about the following:
“… any action performed with greed... performed with aversion... performed with delusion — born of delusion, caused by delusion, originating from delusion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence. [AN 3.33]
"This awareness-release through good will should be developed whether one is a woman or a man. Neither a woman nor a man can go taking this body along. Death, monks, is but a gap of a thought away. One [who practices this awareness-release] discerns, 'Whatever evil action has been done by this body born of action, that will all be experienced here [in this life]. It will not come to be hereafter.' Thus developed, awareness-release through good will leads to non-returning for the monk who has gained gnosis [breaking the five low fetters?] here and has penetrated to no higher release. [ AN 10.208]
To my understanding of these suttas, if one's selfhood does not turn up, then "that action" will not ripen and will not generate karma. If s/he realizes that 'Whatever evil action has been done by this body born of action, that will all be experienced here [in this life]. It will not come to be hereafter.' , then with Metta meditation one can become a non-returner. Am I seeing these teachings correctly? I suppose one has to remove the five fetters to become a non-returner, even though s/he has gained the above-mentioned insight with Metta. But this is not clearly mentioned in the sutta.
Well, if one's selfhood has been completely removed and has no "I"-making, "My-making" and self-centered views, s/he becomes an arahant (literally mean "selfless"?). I wonder if it's better to use the term "No Selfhood" instead of "No Self" for anatta ... Metta,
Last edited by starter
on Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.