Brahma-viharas, some easier/harder for you?

[Tex]

Most of us, it seems, come to Buddhism with a certain amount of life experience that's already helped to influence us or shape us, for better or worse. So, it's reasonable that certain aspects of the brahma-viharas (metta/loving kindness, karuna/compassion, mudita/sympathetic joy, upekkha/equanimity) might come more easily to some of us, while others might require more conscious effort to develop.

But we know that all four are essential and in many ways support and enrich each other.

For my own example, loving-kindness and compassion come very easily to me, while sympathetic joy is a bit harder. I was raised as an only child, so I never experienced that "brotherly love" where you really want someone else to succeed as much as you do yourself. I suspect that type of experience at such a young age would help someone understand mudita more easily later in life as a Buddhist, just as having some hardships at a young age would make it easier later in life to feel karuna for others' hardships. Even with upekkha, which I think most of us have to really work at, I'm sure some people are more "naturally" adept at it given the life experience they bring with them when they start Buddhist practice.

Any thoughts here? Any parts of the brahma-viharas that are easier or harder for you? If so, how do you focus on or practice the harder parts to try to bring them up to speed with the ones that come easier to you?

[zavk]

I too find sympathetic joy the hardest. This becomes obvious to me whenever I see other people (in a similar position as me) achieving success. I often experience feelings of envy, if not jealousy.

I haven't actually tried to work specifically on mudita as such. I find that by working on metta alone, it helps to boost the others.... Metta, for me, seems to clear the ground for the others.

[Mukunda]

I think the challenge in practice of the Brahmavihara is real understanding. If one truly understands and practices any one of them, it is impossible to not practice the rest. But our conditioning gives us mistaken ideas about what kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity are. Case in point: I (and many other Buddhists I've observed) at one time mistakenly associated detachment with equanimity, leading me to be pretty uncaring. And how common is it for Buddhists to refrain from using strong language to prevent someone from harming them self or others, because we think metta or karuna prevents us from saying anything that might upset someone? The only solution I can see is to keep on practicing, accepting that sometimes I get it spot on, and others I fail spectacularly, but I always learn in the process.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Apologies for turning the question on its head a little, but I find it easier to live with the brahma-viharas than to live without them. Living without them is hard.

Knowing this, and in the interests of my own well-being, I live in accordance with them and try to pull myself up very quickly if I lapse into bad habits. To live contrary to the Brahma-viharas is suffering and this reality can be observed in the present moment.

Metta,
Retro.

[Guy]

Greetings,

Apologies for turning the question on its head a little, but I find it easier to live with the brahma-viharas than to live without them. Living without them is hard.

Knowing this, and in the interests of my own well-being, I live in accordance with them and try to pull myself up very quickly if I lapse into bad habits. To live contrary to the Brahma-viharas is suffering and this reality can be observed in the present moment.

Metta,
Retro.

Well said.

[Sanghamitta]

I find each of them a challenge. None of them conform to any natural characteristic that I have to any degree, my own tendency is to be judgemental and dismissive, so hard work then, but greatly effective and essential and fruitful.

[christopher:::]

When i lived unmarried and alone in the countryside it was much easier to cultivate upekkha then now, living with my family in a large city. On the other hand opportunities for expressing metta, karuna and mudita seem to have increased, since my day is filled with human interactions. Being a father, especially, has provided a wonderful practice opportunity.

I'm very aware though how hard it has been to cultivate tranquility, as compared to periods in the past. It's something i definitely have to give more attention to...

[Cittasanto]

being a very violent person in the not so distant past, Take your pick!

but I would say Equanimity is the hardest, simply because it is the one which doesn't arise without practice, the others arise when I meet friends, see someone hurt or they win something, so can be used as a practice, but equanimity needs cultivated more than the others formally.

[Sanghamitta]

I think thats true. Its not one that is developed or recognised as desirable in western culture, where we are strongly encouraged to be partisan and emotionally attached.

[Prasadachitta]

I concur with retro.
+...

Generally sympathetic joy is not as spontaneous as kindness and compassion for me. Not that I am acutely jealous but i just tend to not acknowledge or recognize when others are shining with positive qualities. It is part of my practice to cultivate more attention to the positive qualities of others.


Metta

Gabe

[christopher:::]

Concerning upekkha (equanimity), would some of you like to share the practices that have been most helpful for you?

Also, does anyone have thoughts about how upekkha differs from passaddhi? Buddha mentioned both upekkha and passaddhi as essential factors of awakening.

Why didn't he group them together?

[Reductor]

Concerning upekkha (equanimity), would some of you like to share the practices that have been most helpful for you?

Cultivate the first three well.

Then reflect often on how Kamma operates in your own life. Understand that well. Investigate that. As you better understand just what kamma is and its role in your life, you will easily extend that same understanding to others. When you know how kamma brings you suffering, and brings joy, and that these principals are universal to all beings, you will have fewer limits on who you will give help to.

That`s my thought on it.

Also, does anyone have thoughts about how upekkha differs from passaddhi? Buddha mentioned both upekkha and passaddhi as essential factors of awakening.

Why didn't he group them together?

Because they`re different.

Passaddhi is often rendered as tranquility, as in `it is unmoving` or `still`: like water in an undisturbed glass. In the case of the 7 factors it means the making of the body and mind still, calm, like water in a said glass.

Upekkha is a perceptive mode where an object or event is striped of the normal values of `good` and `bad` (which were based on perceived self interest) and is instead seen in terms of its actual qualities. That is the same meaning it has in relation to the four abodes. We apply the other three mental states fairly to all beings, regardless of how that relates to our own perceived self interest. It can also mean that we ourselves do not go up and down in happiness based on the fortunes of others. Basically it amounts to being imperturbable in the face of any event, but willing to help whenever the opportunity presents itself regardless of the being the is to receive such help.

[christopher:::]

Passaddhi is often rendered as tranquility, as in `it is unmoving` or `still`: like water in an undisturbed glass. In the case of the 7 factors it means the making of the body and mind still, calm, like water in a said glass.

Upekkha is a perceptive mode where an object or event is striped of the normal values of `good` and `bad` (which were based on perceived self interest) and is instead seen in terms of its actual qualities. That is the same meaning it has in relation to the four abodes. We apply the other three mental states fairly to all beings, regardless of how that relates to our own perceived self interest. It can also mean that we ourselves do not go up and down in happiness based on the fortunes of others. Basically it amounts to being imperturbable in the face of any event, but willing to help whenever the opportunity presents itself regardless of the being the is to receive such help.

The first time i read the above, these sounded so similar but reading through a second time the differences are clearer. Very nice.

Thanks so much for your explanation.

[Reductor]

Thanks so much for your explanation.

You're welcome.

Is it my imagination, or is has this thread been bumped a couple of times?

[christopher:::]

Yes, and i'm in part responsible for that. It does seem like an important topic.