Sam's twin teenage daughters go out on dates with teenage clones of Frank and Sujato

 

Re: Kp 9, Snp 1.8: a new reading of the Mettasutta [from Sujato] that will change everything [for the worse]

• Edit
• Delete
• Report
• Quote

Post by frank k » Sat Nov 05, 2022 7:35 am

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 2:30 am

frank k wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 2:25 am

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 1:53 am...
I can't see it, because it hasn't been shown.
...

If you have a kid running around with scissors in a sparsely populated area of living beings,
do you really need to see the proof of some dead or maimed bodies before you're convinced running with scissors is a bad idea?

Or is the maiming and blood just 'imaginary' or 'potential' problems?

In what way is the running scissors kid more akin to Sujato's translation than, say, a kid playing safely with a soft toy?

My last attempt to get through to you.

Say you have 18 year old twin teenage daughters going on date, same night, two different teenage boys.
One is an 18 year old cloned version of Sujato, let's call him Sunny.
One is an 18 year old cloned version of Frank, let's call him Fred.

Sunny is suave, charming, bursting with charisma, has tons of friends and speaks eloquently about the virtues of love.
Fred is quiet, has the charisma of a stone statue, and the social graces to match. He has a very small circle of friends, because he restricts his inner circle to only those of the highest calibre of character.
Your daughter likes Fred despite his lack of obvious appeal, because he says what he means, means what he says, acknowledges his errors openly, is on time, responsible, trustworthy.

Your instructions for your daughters, Sunny, and Fred are thus:
You boys are to bring home my daughters by eleven.
There will only be 'metta' activity. No funny business, no sex, no petting, no fooling around.

Both boys note immediately: "Hmm, he didn't say anything about kissing, and didn't specify what fooling around means, nor what exactly constitutes sex."
The kids say goodbye to the parents and go off on the date.



Fred goes by this definition of 'metta', which he has previously already disclosed to the daughter, and the father:

Mettā (1. ): friendliness, good will, benevolence
mitta (masc.) = friend [√mitt + a]
metta (adj.) = friendly; benevolent; kind [√mitt + *a];
mettā (fem, +loc.) = goodwill (towards); friendliness (to); benevolence (for) [√mitt + *ā]

 As one of the 4bv , this attitude of friendly-kindness is unlimited, impartial, universal and applies to all beings without exception MN 21.
 Mettā should be done concurrently with sati , samādhi, 4 jhānas (4j ), maintained at all times and all postures. AN 8.63 and A-byāpāda, A-vihiṃsā-saṅkappo of 8☸ → 2
 Mettā is an attitude, a wish for other beings to be happy and free from suffering, a commitment to do no harm.
* An 'attitude' can be maintained at all times and all postures.
 Mettā is not a nanny devoting all their energy, time and attention watching unruly kids wreak havoc on the world.
 Mettā is not an obligation to support every living being in the universe until the age of 18 and pay for their college tuition.
 You protect (rakkha) yourself first (by developing 8☸ ), before worrying about protecting othersSN 47.19.
 How does the Buddha's practice of mettā and 4bv differ from the pre-Buddhist brahma-vihāras?
The Buddha's leads to arahantship and non-return, the others only to Brahma realm rebirthAN 4.126.
 A true friend with good will would act (bodily, verbal, mental) in ways that might be unpleasant to the recipient (at appropriate times). Acting in ways that are not in the long term best interests, such as uttering white lies that flatter the recipient, is not mettā.
 Mettā is absolutely not 'love', a highly charged ambiguous word that includes lustful passion, romantic delusion, unhealthy attachments to family and lovers, clinging that leads to pain, suffering, rebirth.
* At best, 'love' might include a component of genuine mettā, but 'love' is not equivalent to 'mettā', and can not be responsibly used as a translation for 'metta'.
* An attitude of friendly-kindness (mettā) from a friend (mitta) is welcome.
* 'lovers' spreading their 'love' to everyone is not welcome and not appropriate.
 'loving-kindness' is an attempt to avoid the problems with 'love', but still an ill-advised translation.

So Fred resolves, "Even though the dad didn't specifiy exactly what he meant by fooling around and sex, my honor code is that I will not initiate any kissing, yes means yes and no means no, and I will not touch anything below the neck with any part of my body, nor with any object I hold with my hands."

Fred returns the daughter home at 11pm sharp.


How did Sunny's date go?
Sunny thinks, "hmm, the Dad didn't say 11pm or 11am, so let's assume 11am."

Remember, Sunny comes from the same genetic clone stock as the guy who translated
lust (kāma),
passion (rāga),
platonic friendliness (metta),

all with the same word 'love'.

And from the same guy who introduced new meanings for the word 'vitakka', which in the EBT means verbal thinking in every single occurrence in the suttas, and even Abhidhamma vibhanga.


So you're telling me, you're equally comfortable with both of your daughters dates, that your instruction to only do 'metta' is going to produce the same results, because everyone, not just sujato, is skilled enough with ambiguity to disambiguate 'love'?

The same guy, who uses whatever definition of vitakka suits his agenda to redefine jhāna? You trust him to honor your daughter's consent of 'yes' or 'no' the same way he honors the Buddha's use of 'vitakka'?

If you trust them both equally, then you are a fool.