Of course it's not a non-answer. Magga-paccaya is one of the 24 Conditions, right out of the texts. Whether it conditions the right path or the wrong path can be seen by what cetasikas are present. I answered briefly, because magga-paccaya itself explains everything. If you don't understand what it is, you can read more about it here: http://www.zolag.co.uk/conditions/html_ ... ition.html.tiltbillings wrote:Of course, this is a non-answer.Virgo wrote:One needs to understand magga-paccaya to really understand it.tiltbillings wrote: Don't be stingy with your words. What is the right path and what is the wrong path?
I didn't want to explain everything, so I summed it up with magga-paccaya.
True metta is never unwholesome. Sila is never unwholesome, etc. There have been many great meditators that cultivated metta. However, just because we think we are cultivating mettta does not mean we actually are. It takes a person with very high accumulations for it to practice samatha of any kind. They have to have panna on that level. I personally do not believe that every person has that kind of understanding. A lot of times, we just increase our self-view that way, taking attachment (unwholesome) as calm (wholesome). During those moments, the cetasikas which are path factors are not present, so we are not on the right path.tiltbillings wrote: The talk you linked was interesting for any number of reasons. The traditional metta practice as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga was utterly dismissed. discounted as being wrong path was interesting, but expected in light of what as been said above, and the rather triumphalist responses of the questioners of Sujin in regards to the traditionalist to metta practice approach was very interesting. So, the question is: why did you link this talk? For what purpose?
It can be hard to know when the mind is kusala or akusala. For example, earlier today while driving I saw a Golden Retriever in someones yard. It was running around and came very close to the edge of the road (almost on the road) as I approached in my vehicle. I had aversion thinking that the dog was pesky and might run into traffic while I drove by, and that I might hit it by accident. Then the dog (while still on the lawn) jumped in the air and wagged it's tail which was quite beautiful. I felt happier immediately and was no longer disturbed by the presence of the dog. After I drove by I thought to myself "first I was averse to the dog which was akusala but then there was a moment with metta and I liked the dog when I saw how playful it was and how nice it looked". When I examined my mind closer, I realized there was actually not any metta at the moment that I thought there was, there was just attachment because seeing a carefree dog made me feel good. I liked the color of it's fur. I liked it's bushy tale. I liked that it was carefree. It made me feel good, and I was attached at that moment. That's akusala, not metta. That moment was not an eight-fold path moment.