A reappraisal of Metta

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
BrokenBones
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

A reappraisal of Metta

Post by BrokenBones »

I must say I've never seen the harm in starting metta with oneself but the more fundamental I become 😉 the closer I look at my own practice in comparison with the suttas...

The video below gives a wonderful presentation of how I was mistaken in my practice (only one slight error, she accidentally says 5th century BC instead of AD for Buddhaghosa).



It basically says that the Buddha never taught self metta and the most explicit instructions to be found in the suttas, the Karaniya Metta Sutta makes no mention of it.

It's only about 25 minutes and well worth a listen.
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by Mr Albatross »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:05 am It basically says that the Buddha never taught self metta and the most explicit instructions to be found in the suttas, the Karaniya Metta Sutta makes no mention of it.
Buddhaghosa himself acknowledges this. His explanation is that the Karaniyametta Sutta is describing the development of metta that leads to absorption, but not the preliminary arousing of metta.

This seems to be correct, for in the Metta Sutta, after spending two and a half verses listing the virtues that a metta meditator needs to have, the Buddha proceeds immediately to:
"May all beings be happy and secure,
may all beings in their hearts be happy!"
And so it seems that this sutta is an answer to the question, "Being possessed of metta, how do I develop it?" But it's not an answer to the question: "Lacking mettā, how do I get it to arise?"

In terms of the third and fourth right efforts, the Metta Sutta describes only the effort of development of a wholesome quality, not the effort of arousing that quality.

Buddhaghosa, however, is concerned with both and describes the arousing thus:
It does not conflict [with the Metta Sutta, etc.] Why not? Because that refers to absorption. But this initial development towards oneself refers to making oneself an example. For even if he developed loving-kindness for a hundred or a thousand years in this way, “I am happy” and so on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops it in this way: “I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too,” making himself the example, then desire for other beings’ welfare and happiness arises in him. And this method is indicated by the Blessed One’s saying:

I visited all quarters with my mind
Nor found I any dearer than myself;
Self is likewise to every other dear;
Who loves himself will never harm another
(S I 75; Ud 47).
In your link the speaker does cite the very same sutta verse as Buddhaghosa, but it seems to me that she is far too quick and unconvincing in her dismissal of its relevance.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by BrokenBones »

Mr Albatross wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:55 pm
BrokenBones wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:05 am It basically says that the Buddha never taught self metta and the most explicit instructions to be found in the suttas, the Karaniya Metta Sutta makes no mention of it.
Buddhaghosa himself acknowledges this. His explanation is that the Karaniyametta Sutta is describing the development of metta that leads to absorption, but not the preliminary arousing of metta.

This seems to be correct, for in the Metta Sutta, after spending two and a half verses listing the virtues that a metta meditator needs to have, the Buddha proceeds immediately to:
"May all beings be happy and secure,
may all beings in their hearts be happy!"
And so it seems that this sutta is an answer to the question, "Being possessed of metta, how do I develop it?" But it's not an answer to the question: "Lacking mettā, how do I get it to arise?"

In terms of the third and fourth right efforts, the Metta Sutta describes only the effort of development of a wholesome quality, not the effort of arousing that quality.

Buddhaghosa, however, is concerned with both and describes the arousing thus:
It does not conflict [with the Metta Sutta, etc.] Why not? Because that refers to absorption. But this initial development towards oneself refers to making oneself an example. For even if he developed loving-kindness for a hundred or a thousand years in this way, “I am happy” and so on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops it in this way: “I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too,” making himself the example, then desire for other beings’ welfare and happiness arises in him. And this method is indicated by the Blessed One’s saying:

I visited all quarters with my mind
Nor found I any dearer than myself;
Self is likewise to every other dear;
Who loves himself will never harm another
(S I 75; Ud 47).
In your link the speaker does cite the very same sutta verse as Buddhaghosa, but it seems to me that she is far too quick and unconvincing in her dismissal of its relevance.
I believe the opening verses list the attributes that one must develop and obviously abandon their opposites so that one is a suitable vessel for developing and practicing metta.

You state that the sutta is an answer to the question... 'Being possessed of metta, how do I develop it?' Where does this idea come from? It's certainly not in the Buddha's teachings.

Where in any of the suttas does the Buddha teach developing metta for oneself? The ego and self love is already strong enough within us... I think developing that self love runs contrary to the whole of Buddha's teachings.

If the speaker is dismissive of Buddhaghosa then that is because she has taken refuge in the Buddha and not Buddhaghosa.
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by Mr Albatross »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:52 pm I believe the opening verses list the attributes that one must develop and obviously abandon their opposites so that one is a suitable vessel for developing and practicing metta.
No disagreement there. You've just stated at length what I stated in brief.
:toast:
You state that the sutta is an answer to the question... 'Being possessed of metta, how do I develop it?' Where does this idea come from?
I meant that this is the purpose the sutta serves. The opening line of the meditation part, "May all beings be happy and secure...", presupposes a case where the person already has metta or has the ability to generate it with ease. But it doesn't tell us how it can be made to arise in someone who lacks it. (I'm assuming here that you would agree with me that merely saying the words, May all beings be happy and secure..." won't suffice to cause metta to arise. And so something else is needed but which the sutta has left unstated).
Where in any of the suttas does the Buddha teach developing metta for oneself?
He doesn't. Nor does Buddhaghosa. What Buddhaghosa teaches is the arousing of metta using oneself as a basis, by adverting to the fact that other beings' yearning for welfare and happiness is for them what my yearning for these things is for me. And the suttas that support this are the very ones that the speaker mentions in her talk, the Piya and Raja Suttas.
The ego and self love is already strong enough within us... I think developing that self love runs contrary to the whole of Buddha's teachings.
No disagreement here. In mettabhavana self-love is something presupposed, not something to be developed.
If the speaker is dismissive of Buddhaghosa then that is because she has taken refuge in the Buddha and not Buddhaghosa.
:shrug:

I've no idea what this is all about. I didn't speak of her being "dismissive of Buddhaghosa", but of her too easy and over-hasty dismissal of the use that Buddhaghosa makes of the Piya and Raja Suttas.

Another problem with her talk, though it didn't mention it earlier, is the uncritical assumption (one that she shares with Ñanananda) that modern pop meditation teachers who tell their their students to start off by thinking, "May I be happy, may I be happy..." are doing as Buddhaghosa instructed. In my view those who teach like this have misunderstood the Visuddhimagga's instructions. They overlook the part that I quoted in my earlier post about "making oneself an example".
BrokenBones
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by BrokenBones »

I think the idea is that the preliminary verses actually cleanse the mind so that metta can arise quite naturally.

Metta arises by cleansing the mind... metta isn't directed to oneself... the idea of metta is that it is a universal practice... narrowing it down to individuals (including oneself) merely makes it an exercise in ego.
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by justindesilva »

BrokenBones wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am I think the idea is that the preliminary verses actually cleanse the mind so that metta can arise quite naturally.

Metta arises by cleansing the mind... metta isn't directed to oneself... the idea of metta is that it is a universal practice... narrowing it down to individuals (including oneself) merely makes it an exercise in ego.
I too have had experience of maithri bhavana. Here as of karaniya metta sutta we identify all types of beings in this realm as big, small, seen, unseen etc. Here it is a basis
of formation of sati as a base to radiate metta. Secondly our engine of citta which radiates metta or maitri or loving kindness should be properly equipped with wholesome cetasika. Hence before starting meditation we purify our cetasika against dwesha or kroda which is often present in us. Thereby before as of preparation it is good to stay within by proposing "let me be free from any anger or ill will towards all beings,"..
Once we feel that our cetasika is void of anger or illwill, it is easier and effective in radiating metta towards all other beings, and one will be equipped with a samma sati.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by BrokenBones »

justindesilva wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:45 am
BrokenBones wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am I think the idea is that the preliminary verses actually cleanse the mind so that metta can arise quite naturally.

Metta arises by cleansing the mind... metta isn't directed to oneself... the idea of metta is that it is a universal practice... narrowing it down to individuals (including oneself) merely makes it an exercise in ego.
I too have had experience of maithri bhavana. Here as of karaniya metta sutta we identify all types of beings in this realm as big, small, seen, unseen etc. Here it is a basis
of formation of sati as a base to radiate metta. Secondly our engine of citta which radiates metta or maitri or loving kindness should be properly equipped with wholesome cetasika. Hence before starting meditation we purify our cetasika against dwesha or kroda which is often present in us. Thereby before as of preparation it is good to stay within by proposing "let me be free from any anger or ill will towards all beings,"..
Once we feel that our cetasika is void of anger or illwill, it is easier and effective in radiating metta towards all other beings, and one will be equipped with a samma sati.
I can go with that... the wish to be free from any anger or ill towards others is definitely part of the cleansing of the mind before wishing metta to all beings.
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by Mr Albatross »

BrokenBones wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am I think the idea is that the preliminary verses actually cleanse the mind so that metta can arise quite naturally.
Why would possession of the fifteen virtues in the opening verses give rise to metta in particular?

I mean I don't doubt that they would generate further wholesome states of some sort, but I don't see why it would necessarily be metta. Why not simply contentment or non-remorse?
Metta arises by cleansing the mind... metta isn't directed to oneself... the idea of metta is that it is a universal practice... narrowing it down to individuals (including oneself) merely makes it an exercise in ego.
I've already addressed the matter of "directing metta to oneself". I think we are agreed that this is not what the preliminary development of metta entails. The disagreement seems to be about whether the preliminary development entails using oneself as a basis for arousing metta. I think this is the correct way to proceed, while your position, if I understand it correctly, is that mere possession of the fifteen virtues is a sufficient condition for metta to arise.

I also disagree that there is anything inherently "universal" about mettā. Certainly it can be ( and ought to be) developed to a universal extent. But the idea that it is inherently universal is contradicted by those suttas in which the Buddha recommends directional pervasion, one direction at a time. Also those in which he advises monks to make sure that they have a "mind of mettā" towards a badly behaved monk before proceeding to admonish him.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by BrokenBones »

Obviously you can send metta to an individual... but only because you see that individual as subject to old age, sickness & death and that individuals dukkha is what all beings are subject to... metta has a universality to it... it means it can't truly arise if distinctions are made.

Metta in daily life is to see that everyone we come in contact with is worthy of our metta simply because we're all in the same boat and it would be perverse not to feel metta for someone who shares in our and everyone else's suffering.
circuit
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:00 am

Re: A reappraisal of Metta

Post by circuit »

imho,

Metta = Friendliness, friendly atttitudes towards "being(s)".

Karuna = Compassion, a wish or want or actions to free "being(s) with suffering" from its/their suffering.

Mudita = Empathy, to be happy with others which is/are happy or successful "being(s)".

Upekkha = Equanimity, wisely understand that every happenings --- are actions / kamma and fruit of actions/vipaka which follow , kamma here is not always past kamma or actions in past lives, but generally actions in this life . if Equanimity is combined with discernment that someone is not different from others, and are subject to ageing process, sickness and decaying process, it comes very near to understanding a dhamma.

imho, these 4 boundless mind attitude trainings are 1 package which is gradual and comprehensive training for understanding a dhamma.

cmmiw
Post Reply