[Buddha-l] Website of the Arya Sanghata Sutra

[Jayarava]

--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Frankly, I don't see that sort of hairshirt or callous-building 
> recommendation at all in the sutta. Sounds too much like
> the chubby guy in The Name of the Rose. 

I am easily confused with that chubby guy in the Name of the Rose - I'm even a librarian! :-)

> The contrast the sutta draws is that for one steeped 
> in all sorts of bad habits and poor understandings, even a
> trivial bad deed will have dire consequences, while for one 
> well-developed in a good way, will still have some bad consequences as a 
> result of the same sort of trivial misdeed, but the results will be much 
> more immediate, trivial themselves, and easily gone past and forgotten.

It does draw that contrast. Quite right. But the first thing it says is that for anyone who claims: "however a man does an action; that's how he will experience it" ("yathā yathāyaṃ puriso kammaṃ karoti tathā tathā taṃ paṭisaṃvediyati" - my translation), for the one who might say this *there is no spiritual life*. So the next bit has to be read in this light!

The point is that having done things in confusion, one need not experience them as a confused person; one can develop and will find that the consequences of those confused actions are not so severe as they might have been because of having developed body, ethics, mind and wisdom. That is to say it is possible to mitigate (though not eliminate) the consequences of one's actions through spiritual practices. 

I was speculating, in my hick way, about why being bhāvitakāya etc (basically ethics and meditation, or spiritual practice in my jargon) makes experience (paṭisamvedeti) more bearable when it comes. And I think robustness in the face of the worldly winds sums it up quite well. 

> I thought my alchoholic analogy caught that dimension well.

Sort of. But what has the non-alcoholic done to be able to drink with impunity? Nothing, it's just a trick of genetics. They aren't a morally superior, or more developed person ("We hates them, precious"). We may be like the alcoholic in that we are addicted to sense-data, but in what way is the non-alcoholic like the "well developed" person? The analogy suggests that being well developed is akin to being a lucky bleeder.

One last point - surely cultivation (bhāvita) cannot be habitual, but must be conscious and intentional? The use of the causative emphasises the intentional aspect don't you think?

Regards
Jayarava