befriend wrote:i think people who hate life, and do not enjoy just being themselves, and being alive. they are not so compassionate. people who love life, maybe have some thoughts once in a while where they have gratitude for being alive, this puts a twinlkle in there eye, and are less likely to harm others, as they do not want to take the joy of life from other beings. so it might not BE metta, but i think its a foundation for it. i dont know really, im just thinking out loud. metta, befriend.
We don't need to jump from one extreme to the other. As it has been said earlier, life is not to be loved, nor hated, but to be understood by wisdom.
As long as we are not anagami or arahat, we can't stop laughing, weeping, being delighted looking at the sun setting down a lake, or feeling rising affection for a little kid playing...
However, to have these natural reactions according to our inner level of wisdom is one thing, to know them for their true nature is another thing. Love for life is a refined form of craving, and as long as you don't know it for what it truly is, you are not walking the right Path. Just consider what I asked earlier about how you define life and examine all the elements making up what you call life and see whether they are permanent.
Metta has adosa (non-aversion) as foundation, which is not synonym of love for life, which falls under lobha (craving). Most people mistake craving for metta, which is understandable as our mode of functioning mostly switch from aversion to craving and vice versa. Craving has an extreme power to survive, and never one to be denounced, so it might call it-self metta
You can still keep your own ideas of the Path, if you want. But since we are supposedly Buddhist, it is not better to examine the validity of our ideas under the light of wisdom that the Buddha has left, out of his infinite (true) metta and compassion?