After only practicing this a few days I began seeing the entire world as alive and wishing it well as a sort of pervasive mood. I think I will rate this meditation very very applicable to all who, like me, have a bit of trouble with the 'negative' meditations. This one (lovingkindness/metta) is very conducive to happiness of myself, and my surroundings. Thank you dear teacher!!
Thank you, Bhante. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu. The Blessed One hasn't steered me wrong yet. If he said that my present attitudes and decisions affect my future conditions and experience (in this and future lives), then I must be capable of holding attitudes and making decisions that have not been decided for me. How? That's where the development of ever more sharp and discriminating mindfulness comes in. The more aware I am of the conditioning and habits that influence my thinking, the more I can make choices that are informed by Wisdom and Sila, not greed, hatred or delusion.
I am still not happy. ☹ 59:50 "Maybe there is a moment of volition where I am willing to see..." What initiates the first moment of this volition, what initiates the first moment of mindfulness, what initiates the first moment of a "new habit force"? Isn't that kamma, as well? Under the influence of bad kamma you perform one bad deed after the other, but than a minute impulse of good kamma comes along that helps you to create more good kamma, which in turn is the basis for more good acts of volition etc. So in the end you are still just a puppet of your kamma, because every good volition requires the basis of an impulse of good kamma??? 😯
AN 6-38 is a deep sutta that implores the questions such as: is there "free-will"? Is "free-will" really "free"? If there is no metaphysical self, what is the "self-initiative" required to practice the Eightfold Noble Paths, such as "right mindfulness", "right endeavour/effort" ? Is there such a thing as "fate" and what role does "kamma" play?
Just a minute or two into this section, the discussion of the similarity between the contents of MN 117 and the Abhidharma on the same subjects seems to be suggesting two possibilities. The first is that Abhidharmic thinking was developing early in the origins of Buddhism "maybe within the early sangha there were discussions taking place, and some of the teachers would start developing this more analytical method of explanation and then some of those explanations then found their way into the sutta Pitaka". The second is that the Abhidharma "had already emerged... the monks looking back at the suttas" sort of back-filled the suttas with more precise definitions drawn on Abhidharmic thinking. But isn't there are third possibility? That -- perhaps late in his career -- the Buddha actually said what's in MN 117, and the Abhidharmic thinkers took what he said and developed it? It seems far more logical to take what's in the suttas that's refected in the Abhidharma as being ordered as "Buddha said; later thinkers discussed it a lot and developed it" rather than assuming what would clearly be incorrect behavior of any dedicated followers/scholars of the Buddha's teachings, putting words in his mouth that were not originally there.
The question I have is this: Why is there this understanding of MN 117 that it is not what the Buddha said, but that the two paths, Mundane and Supramundane, are a later invention. Given that in this talk there's agreement that the content of the list following "There is what is given" is not limited to the Buddha's teaching (begins at about 25:30) but is a list of (using a modern term) Generally Agreed Upon right views in India at the time, why would anyone think that this is inconsistent with what the Buddha says elsewhere in the suttas? Is there an indication that he thinks the folks whose versions of these views that are slightly different from his own will go to Hell? I can understand that when that list is interpreted as limited to the Buddha's teachings, the sutta is then out of tune with the rest of what he teaches. But when it is seen as described here, what is the objection that makes it not fit with the rest? Only that he only said it once?
Thank you for a spectacularly clear explanation of different levels of Right Speech -- from about 10 minutes in: that one's motivation in refraining from the various forms of wrong speech makes a difference. Is it for the purpose of merit-making/a good rebirth? (I'd add: or any selfish reason like to be recognized as a good person.) Then that's a very Mundane level of Right Speech. Is it purely to get further on the path to wisdom, to liberation, where you're no longer creating dukkha not just for yourself but others? That's a higher level of Mundane Right Speech. I'd suggest that when we have moments where we're not even having to restrain ourselves -- when all the reasons for not engaging in Wrong Speech have become so clear that we no longer feel disposed to engage in wrong speech, that's truly World-Transcending Right Speech. Maybe that level is still a bit wobbly -- it comes and goes -- is that how it is for one "possessing the path, practicing the path" perhaps? Ah (after listening to more on action) I see a questioner makes that last distinction.
