Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby manas » Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:03 pm

This has been on my mind for a long time to investigate, and I would appreciate any links to good discussions on this. It is this: we feel metta for someone, or just have a feeling of generalized goodwill towards humanity at a particular moment. That is an intention, a sankhara, right? But along with that intention, there is a pleasant feeling, which is classed as vedana. So is it like this: metta is sankhara, but there is pleasant feeling that results from contact with it, which is vedana (in this instance, 'not-of-the-flesh'?) but when we are actually in the experience, it seems difficult to distinguish these?

(By the way, if I have totally or even partially misapprehended (or incorrectly defined) anything, please let me know!)

Thanks for reading

manas
:anjali:
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

SarathW
Posts: 8014
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby SarathW » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:06 am

Hi Manas
I could not really get what you mean.
But the way I understand Metta, Karuna and Mudita to be extended in conjunction with Uppekka. So there is no pleasant or unpleasant feeling.
No karma (Sankahra) as they are termed as Kiriya Citta.
Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:23 am


SarathW
Posts: 8014
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby SarathW » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:41 am

Hi Mike
Thanks. I see the question now. The link you provided also very helpful.
:)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

binocular
Posts: 3391
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby binocular » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:25 am


User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby manas » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:48 pm

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby Sylvester » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:58 am


User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Are metta and the associated feeling, actually distinct?

Postby reflection » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:54 pm

Aside from good replies already given, I'd like to add something out of my experience. In a way one can see sankhara apart, and form apart from the group of consciousness/feeling/perception, but not always is it a useful thing to try and fit experiences into them. First of all the aggregates aren't meant for this, but also because the latter group of three is always a bit of a soup, a mix of things having a shared flavor. But perhaps more so because usually, the whole of our experience is a bit of a soup. To tell things apart, is not easy to do when in ordinary consciousness.

When we regularly feel metta in daily life, there is already much going on in the mind. It constructs an object for the metta (also a sankhara), it feels metta, it is conscious of both the object and metta. Probably there are thoughts arising as well and there are also other senses are going on. There is contact at the eye, ear, etc etc, with their associated feelings, consciousness and sankharas etc. This state of being is not really productive to see what is what, to distinguish things.

And neither should you at that point, because the practice of metta doesn't require this. I think it's more fruitful to take the metta as an object itself, let it still the mind down. To feel where metta and mindfulness blend together. At that point the question will also disappear, because it is too coarse a fabrication.


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine