Right speech

[Sam Vara]

How would that process differ for physical pain, as opposed to hurt feelings?

I don't want to go off-topic, but I'm wondering if this only applies to speech.

It is the same pertaining 'physical' pain.

Pain/sickness has already arisen when we are born.

Do you mean that birth is a precondition for the pain and sickness that arises during our life? If so, then that's obvious. Or do you mean that all pain and sickness is present from birth? That sounds less plausible, given its changeability. You appear to mean the former, as you go on to talk of

The manner to deliver the pain, [which] is of no significance.

So pain can "arise", without yet being "delivered"? Is that like it being at the parcel depot, but not yet brought to my door by the driver? If so, then the manner of delivery is very significant as far as I'm concerned. I'll take delivery of my "arisen" pain by means of a mild electric shock, rather than the red-hot ball of metal, please. Oh, and I'm out most mornings. Leave it on the porch if there's no answer.

A leg broken by a mugger or by an accidental fall, both is from same condition - birth.

Sure. In a world of conditions, they share one condition. But your examples are only possible because they differ with regard to other conditions. One is from the condition called "mugging", and the other is from the condition "accident". Were that not so, your example would be meaningless.

[Sam Vara]

Environment causes sensation, if I yell loud in your ear or use an air horn I can cause you physical harm. Similarly if one eats hot pepper they feel heat.
But my speech cannot effect you unless you react to it with aversion or craving.
The intent would be my volition which is my personal responsibility nothing to do with others.

Jack is correct.

Jack's point is that "all hurt comes from inside, has nothing to do with who is talking. We must stop looking at others or external environments for origins of our hurt feelings". I take this to mean that, in the case of speech, words in themselves cannot hurt the listener; the listener must interpret the words to mean something which they find unfavourable, or make some sort of mental construct out of them which gives rise to unpleasant mental feeling. Words are mere patterns of sound-waves or pixels or symbols on paper, which require active attribution of meaning. A person cursing or abusing in a foreign language will have no effect upon the reader, or the listener if done in a neutral tone.

My question is whether Jack thinks "all hurt comes from inside" and "if others can influence our feelings, there is no possibility for liberation" in the case of vedana caused by physical injury.

But we are not seeking liberation from external physical sensations. We don’t train 8-fold path so you can avoid back pain. It’s merely the added mental pain we seek to liberate from.

I'm not interested here in what we seek liberation from. In asking Jack whether "all hurt comes from inside" when we are talking about physical pain as well as mental pain, to see whether that's a tenable condition.

Jack has answered now, thanks.

[Sam Vara]

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

But the sutta is just as clear that by caring for others one looks after oneself, as it is that by-self-caring one looks after others. I'm not saying that the two are opposed; merely that they are both there, equally weighted, and that ignoring one of them one has "a practice" which is not based on the full teaching. I choose to look at the whole teaching, with the assumption that there is a good reason for it being spoken and recorded in this way.

The caring for others is sankaras(past life regressions or past lives).

What does this mean? That caring for others is a compounded phenomenon in a way that caring for oneself is not? What do past lives have to do with it?

The practice is a selfish one as stated earlier

Stating is just stating, whether it's early or late. But I'm open to listening to a reason as to why it has been stated.

[Jack19990101]

Sure. In a world of conditions, they share one condition. But your examples are only possible because they differ with regard to other conditions. One is from the condition called "mugging", and the other is from the condition "accident". Were that not so, your example would be meaningless.

It is a choice when one considers cause of pain. With choice of cause, one yields decision of action.

Now, if u chose birth as condition for pain. Action is to eliminate birth,

Of course there is other choice - one considers aggressor or accident the source of pain. in that case, action will not be to eliminate birth.

[Sam Vara]

Sure. In a world of conditions, they share one condition. But your examples are only possible because they differ with regard to other conditions. One is from the condition called "mugging", and the other is from the condition "accident". Were that not so, your example would be meaningless.

It is a choice when one considers cause of pain. With choice of cause, one yields decision of action.

Now, if u chose birth as condition for pain. Action is to eliminate birth,

Of course there is other choice - one considers aggressor or accident the source of pain. in that case, action will not be to eliminate birth.

This doesn't seem to make much sense, I'm afraid. Birth is of course a precondition for every experience, including any instance of physical pain. But that birth cannot be eliminated - it has already happened. One can, though, eliminate the cause of an accident or a mugging.

[KathyLauren]

Sure. In a world of conditions, they share one condition. But your examples are only possible because they differ with regard to other conditions. One is from the condition called "mugging", and the other is from the condition "accident". Were that not so, your example would be meaningless.

It is a choice when one considers cause of pain. With choice of cause, one yields decision of action.

Now, if u chose birth as condition for pain. Action is to eliminate birth,

Of course there is other choice - one considers aggressor or accident the source of pain. in that case, action will not be to eliminate birth.

It is a mistake to suppose that an event or a thought or feeling has only one cause. The Buddha never talked about kammic effects having a single cause. He always talked about causes and conditions in the plural. When multiple causes cone together in the right (multiple) conditions, then the effect occurs.

Kathy

[asahi]

This doesn't seem to make much sense, I'm afraid. Birth is of course a precondition for every experience, including any instance of physical pain. But that birth cannot be eliminated - it has already happened. One can, though, eliminate the cause of an accident or a mugging.

Then we have to talk about pre-condition of birth otherwise where are we headed .

[Sam Vara]

This doesn't seem to make much sense, I'm afraid. Birth is of course a precondition for every experience, including any instance of physical pain. But that birth cannot be eliminated - it has already happened. One can, though, eliminate the cause of an accident or a mugging.

Then we have to talk about pre-condition of birth otherwise where are we headed .

That's a different topic. The precondition of birth is important, but I'm concerned here with birth as a precondition. Specifically, that treating birth as a cause of suffering in the same way that we treat agency or mishap as a cause of suffering is a category error.

[asahi]

That's a different topic. The precondition of birth is important, but I'm concerned here with birth as a precondition. Specifically, that treating birth as a cause of suffering in the same way that we treat agency or mishap as a cause of suffering is a category error.

Probably i miss out , we are not talking about dukkha sacca .

[thepea]

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

Not at all. I’ve previously mentioned that ones volition can only be truly known by their self and what others interpret of my speech is may not be a reflection of my volition.
Free speech is a freedom that is necessary for the eightfold path. But it comes with kamma(cause and effect). By the wisdom of our kamma do we learn to come out of suffering.

So what does developing harmlesness mean to you?

I don’t really think about developing harmlessness. I practice to reduce suffering, in my own mind.

[Spiny Norman]

I don’t really think about developing harmlessness.

Maybe you should. It's in the 8-fold path, right?

[thepea]

I don’t really think about developing harmlessness.

Maybe you should. It's in the 8-fold path, right?

It’s a by-product of the selfish practice which is the 8-fold noble path.
Buddha didn’t reach nirvana being kind to his wife and son.

[Johann]

I don’t really think about developing harmlessness.

Maybe you should. It's in the 8-fold path, right?

It’s a by-product of the selfish practice which is the 8-fold noble path.
Buddha didn’t reach nirvana being kind to his wife and son.

It's right that the Sublime Buddha abstained from wrong speech, and killing and harming for them, good householder. So all Noble Ones as well.

[Spiny Norman]

I don’t really think about developing harmlessness.

Maybe you should. It's in the 8-fold path, right?

It’s a by-product of the selfish practice which is the 8-fold noble path.
Buddha didn’t reach nirvana being kind to his wife and son.

4 of the 8 path factors are other-regarding, so why do you call it a "selfish practice"? Or do you just ignore the parts you don't like?

[DNS]

Buddha didn’t reach nirvana being kind to his wife and son.

He taught Dhamma to them, he ordained them and they became arahants. There is no greater gift than that.