
Uilium wrote:What is the difference between love without attatchment and loving-kindness(or compassion)?
makarasilapin wrote:Uilium wrote:What is the difference between love without attatchment and loving-kindness(or compassion)?
i really dislike the term "loving-kindness". try to be lovingly kind to person that treats you like garbage. instead, i've found it easier to have goodwill for them - disliking them but wishing them all the best, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.
again, "love without attachment" sounds ridiculous to me. that would require the love to be unconditional, and i think we know what the Unconditioned is; to say the Buddha "loved" everyone would be a misunderstanding but i think it's closer to the mark that he had goodwill toward all beings, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.
Prasadachitta wrote:
Words tend to have spheres of influence in what they indicate. It helps to have context. In my opinion goodwill does not express as much caring as loving kindness. As far as I know traditionally metta does have the potential to shade into something like affection or sticky attachment so it can be "linked to attachment" as well. I like "universal loving kindness" to express the perfection of metta as one of the sublime abidings. That way attachment to an individual is excluded.

daverupa wrote:I like the term "friendliness" for metta, though I sometimes prefer the strength of the term "camaraderie".
makarasilapin wrote:Uilium wrote:What is the difference between love without attatchment and loving-kindness(or compassion)?
i really dislike the term "loving-kindness". try to be lovingly kind to person that treats you like garbage. instead, i've found it easier to have goodwill for them - disliking them but wishing them all the best, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.
again, "love without attachment" sounds ridiculous to me. that would require the love to be unconditional, and i think we know what the Unconditioned is; to say the Buddha "loved" everyone would be a misunderstanding but i think it's closer to the mark that he had goodwill toward all beings, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.
Return to General Theravāda discussion
Registered users: Ben, Bing [Bot], binocular, BuddhaSoup, Coyote, Crazy cloud, Exabot [Bot], Galaxy, Google [Bot], retrofuturist