Jump to content

Talk:Maitrī

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut and paste

[edit]

Please note that this page was improperly cut-and-pasted from Metta to Mettā on July 13, 2005. See here for full authorship history. - Nat Krause 09:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the part added about insomnia, nightmares

[edit]

I felt this was important to mention because so many people suffer from these things and lovingkindness meditation is indeed a particularly good 'treatment'. In respect to this the Buddha actually said:

"Monks, for one who practises metta, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven? One sleeps easily ~ wakes easily ~ dreams no evil dreams ~ is dear to human beings ~ dear to non-human beings ~ the devas (forces of goodness) protect one ~ neither fire, poison, nor weapons can harm one ~ one's mind concentrates easily ~ one's complexion is bright ~ one dies unconfused and - if penetrating no higher ~ one is born in the Brahma worlds." - from the Metta Sutta [AN: XI.16]

In our intellectual age Metta meditation is sometimes seen as somehow not as important as the so-called 'insight' meditations. But experienced meditators will tell you that it is one of the most profound and useful meditations you can do, bringing you benefits in both your so-called 'worldly' life, but also leading to profound states of peace and relaxation that have a powerful clarifying effect on the mind, allowing it to see reality more clearly - and thereby leading to insight.


  • This is a beautiful article and a beautiful set of comments and quotations. Congratulations to whomever wrote it. Yes, Buddhism is not just intellectual analysis (far, far from it!). The suffusing of the entire world - all beings, including animals and even demons and hell-dwellers! - with loving-kindness (metta/maitri) is profoundly Buddhist. Just one point: "metta" is not, as far as I am aware, one of the 6 or 10 "paramitas". So perhaps that statement can be removed. But I do want to thank the writer(s) for creating such an inspiring and uplifting article. Warm wishes to you in Dharma, from Tony TonyMPNS 16:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The paramitas of the Theravada and Mahayana schools differ, and I have made this clearer in the article. See e.g. Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary p.148 where he cites Visuddhimagga ix.24. Shantavira 18:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hallo Shantavira. I stand corrected! Thank you for your information. I have learnt something today! Best wishes - Tony. TonyMPNS 18:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Metta Not Specifically Taught as Self-Directed by the Buddha

[edit]
  • Hallo Andkaha. Thanks for your comment that, according to your understanding, the Buddha does actually instruct the metta-meditator to direct metta towards himself/ herself (at the beginning of the relevant sutta). I've just checked up on that, and I must say that I cannot see any specific statement to this effect by the Buddha. I know that the tradition has established itself of starting the brahma-vihara meditations by directing the four attitudes to oneself, but I can see no clear sutta-textual basis for this. It strikes me as clear (when one reads the sutta) that the Buddha is speaking about directing one's loving-kindness, etc., to other beings (the whole focus is "other", not "self") - otherwise he would have said (as was his custom at such times), "to oneself and other"; but he does not. I have always felt it extremely odd (and at variance with the doctrine of "anatta") to be directing loving-kindness to oneself - when that personal self is a bundle of skandhas! I think it is much more in harmony with the Buddha's teaching here simply to detach from the ego and direct one's love, etc., outward to other beings. Anyway, I'd be interested to know if you can find any passage in the suttas (or even the Mahayana sutras) where the Buddha specifically states that one should start this practice (or end it - or whatever) by directing the brahma-viharas towards oneself. I could well be wrong - but I have to-date never found any such passage. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this message until I already done some other edits. Well, I could point to Ñanamoli's translation of the Metta Sutta (AN 4.125) which contains the words "to all as to himself", but also in the Sutta quoted in the article I read the eight first lines as an instruction to the practitioner to cultivate loving-kindness in the form of wishing for one's own goodness, knowledge of the path, "able-and-uprightness", etc. --- Andkaha(talk) 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again Andkaha. Thanks for your ideas. I think Nanamoli's translation is a bit deviant from others I have read (we would need to check the original Pali). I myself would not see the first part of the sutta as being specifically concerned with directing any of the four brahma-viharas towards oneself; but you are right that advice is given there for one to cultivate various virtuous qualities, as you mention. But I would make a distinction and say that this is not specifically metta or the other brahma-viharas. I have to work now - but hopefully will check out the Pali at a later point (you and Nanamoli may well be right)! Best wishes to you, Andkaha. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metta is a wide variety of different positive emotions. Well-wishing is only one way to generate Metta. Wishing oneself (or another) to have/gain knowledge of the path is definitely a Metta-generating practice. --- Andkaha(talk) 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhaghosa similarly identifies that there is no explicit reference in the suttas for using metta toward oneself, but he justifies it based on SN i.75 (Ud. 47). I've added a footnote elaborating on this in the article. Hope this might be of value. LarryR (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"practiced with mindfulness of breath ... prevent the loss of compassion"

[edit]

In the first paragraph, the last sentence states:

The mettā bhāvanā (cultivation of mettā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism, practiced with mindfulness of breath, which provides concentration, so as to prevent the loss of compassion.

What does this mean? What relationship is it attempting to identify between metta and anapanasati -- is it that they both provide samatha or is one supposed to practice anapanasati at the same time as metta?? And what in all this is supposed to prevent the loss of compassion? Where do these ideas come from? Can someone please clarify this for me and cite its basis? Else, I'd like to change this statement to:

The mettā bhāvanā (cultivation of mettā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism.

Although it would be nice if we could provide a citation for even this reduced statement. Thanks for any help. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Honestly, this morning I woke up recalling that when I first started practicing metta, based on something I read in Sharon Salzberg's book, I would "send out" the (silent) verbal messages with my out breath and I found it to create a very spacious practice. A "problem" I personally encountered with doing such is that such a body-centered practice repeatedly drove me to a tonglen-type of experience as opposed to a purely metta practice. Regardless, I accept that synchronizing metta with the breath -- if that is even what is suggested by the above statement -- could be a legitimate practice; nevertheless, it's important to know it's canonical source. For instance, as a very broad guideline, I'd like to suggest something like if the idea is one that recurs in the Pali Canon (which, in this case, I doubt), let's leave it in the first paragraph; if it's part of the Visuddhimagga, let's stick it down further in description of sending metta to the different types of people; if it's part of Kamalashila's integrative efforts of non-canonical or cross-traditional techniques, perhaps let's put it in an end note; and, if it's based solely on personal experience, let's take it out of an encyclopedic article. Yes?

It's been over a month without any response, so I made this change. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "object" of metta practice

[edit]

The intro currently includes the following paragraph:

The object of mettā meditation is to cultivate loving kindness (love without attachment, non-exclusive love) towards all sentient beings. The practice usually begins with the meditator cultivating loving kindness towards themselves (though this is not specifically recommended by the Buddha himself in the relevant suttas/sutras), then their loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers and finally their enemies.

I'd like to wordsmith this paragraph for the following reasons:

  1. It is unclear to me what is meant by the "object" of metta meditation. If what is meant is the "objective," then this statement is simply POV. For instance, Buddhaghosa states that the canonical purpose of metta is for jhana attainment (see Note 3). If what is meant is the "phenomenal experience," then I agree that metta practice's object of contemplation/concentration is metta (lovingkindness) itself; however, my recollection is that, again according to Buddhaghosa, the explicit object is not necessarily "loving kindness ... towards all sentient beings" — lovingkindness towards one's teacher is sufficient if it leads one to attain sufficient absorption.
  2. The statement that "[t]he practice usually begins with the meditator ..." is not supported in the Pali Canon (see the aforementioned note as well as the numerous canonical excerpt currently incorporated in the article). However, based on the Visuddhimagga's instruction, I think it is safe to write, "Traditionally, the practice begins with the meditator...." This both obviates the need for the parenthetical caveat (which I'm inclined to make an endnote) and summarizes (as introductory material should) the material further below in this article.
  3. The final "subject" of metta, at least according to this own article's statement below (and perhaps suggested in this intro's oveall statement?) is "all sentient beings."

Thus, I intend to wordsmith this paragraph so that it reads:

The object of mettā meditation is to cultivate loving kindness (love without attachment, non-exclusive love). Traditionally, the practice begins with the meditator cultivating loving kindness towards themselves[1] then their loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings.

where the endnote is a variation on the existing parenthetical text:

Regarding the cultivation of loving kindness towards oneself, this is not specifically recommended by the Buddha himself in the pertinent canonical discourses but is inferred in the commentarial literature from other discourses.

I hope this makes sense and seems appropriate. If not, please discuss. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion meditation?

[edit]

Some recent additions to this article appear to be equating metta meditation with "compassion meditation" (e.g., "The cultivation of loving-kindness (mettā bhāvanā), also known as 'compassion meditation' ..."). At least in terms of traditional Buddhism, I believe that this may be a mistake or confused. In the Pali Canon (and thus throughout Theravada Buddhism), the four divine abodes are metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha. "Karuna" is compassion. Moreover, in some Mahayana schools, the cultivation of compassion is a priority and, again, is distinguishable from what this article (accurately) describes as metta meditation.

I guess, at some level, what a practitioner undergoes to achieve states of compassion overlaps with aspects of achieving loving-kindness, but, at face value, to equate these two related but different practices seems to be misleading or inaccurate.

Perhaps the newly added "compassion meditation" material should be moved to the karuna article?

Alternately, is it possible to print or provide a link to the actual meditation technique used in the cited research. It might have nothing to do with either metta or karuna but instead might be related to some deva worship (e.g., see anussati) or Tibetan lojong practice -- in which case the related articles there might be more pertinent.

Just two cents, 24.136.253.60 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just took the time to scan the second end note associated with the "compassion meditation" research material, at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172902.htm . (Perhaps I need to read more deeply?) Based on this scan, the article appears to clearly identify that what is meant by "compassion meditation" is lojong. For instance, the article states: "Although secular in presentation, the compassion meditation program was based on a thousand-year-old Tibetan Buddhist mind-training practice called 'lojong' in Tibetan." Lojong -- a praiseworthy practice -- is fairly strongly associated with Tibetan Buddhist practices and, as the article indicates, is about a thousand years old. This current WP article is about "metta" practice, which is strongly associated with Theravada Buddhism, and is over 2,000 years old.
I love the idea of finding research that supports the efficacy of metta for people's overall health, as well as for their spiritual progress. However, this newly added material does not seem to directly be such material. I think, at best, the referenced material could be added here as a tangential end note to any other material in this article regarding research; otherwise, I'd personally recommend that the thoughtful recent additions be moved to the lojong article. (I suspect the authors of that article will love this material :-) ).
I hope this makes sense. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness editing and good-hearted intentions. With metta, 24.136.253.60 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed this problem, but in the form of how this page does not make a distinction between metta and the meditation wherein metta is developed. This is somewhat appropriate, the repetition of that feeling is what metta meditation is.[2][3]
I've only ever seen "compassion meditation," in a scientific context, being translated as metta, never as karuna. It could have other translations that I haven't seen. Perhaps 'compassion meditation' itself deserves a page separate from metta? At least in the scientific community, this phrase 'compassion meditation' is very popular, see a simple, commonplace search for "compassion mediation" on scholar.google.com for example, as proof.
Either way, the type of meditation practiced by Matthieu Ricard, as described in this, imho, awesome, interview of Matthieu here http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/87 and the type mentioned here by Richard J. Davidson http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/25 actually with the word compassion in the title of, "Cultivating compassion: Neuroscientific and behavioral approaches". Furthermore, the video here http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/21 which is also from the Stanford site the other two are from, includes a mention of the category difference between non-dual compassion, which does not involve philosophical thought, I guess you might call it, and other types practiced in other Buddhist traditions where conceptual thought is practiced in fact, and is the focus of that meditation. This whole distinction is briefly mentioned on this page as "non-referential" compassion.
Anyways, that is what I meant when I wrote "compassion meditation," and I figured it should be in the lede so that people would understand what they're reading when they find it later in the article. I think the word is commonplace enough that it deserves mention, and there are several studies I mentioned, mostly from the first two Stanford video links in the paragraph above, where the word "compassion" is used. I wonder though if "compassion meditation" deserves a page separate from metta itself, and then perhaps, if we do keep the two on the same page, some mention that metta and the cultivation of metta mean slightly different things.
makeswell 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)
Since we're on the topic of definition, this page is useful http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/89 --makeswell 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Makeswell, thanks for your excellent recommendations for educating me. I appreciate your time, thought and effort. As you recommended, I did a general search and took a peek at the first hit from NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267490/ . Honestly, I was surprised when, under the rubric "compassion meditation," they included these "Meditation Instructions":

“During the training session, the subject will think about someone he cares about, such as his parents, sibling or beloved, and will let his mind be invaded by a feeling of altruistic love (wishing well-being) or of compassion (wishing freedom from suffering) toward these persons. After some training the subject will generate such feeling toward all beings and without thinking specifically about someone...."

That there indeed is a simplified, truncated variation on the traditional commentarial instructions (e.g., as found in Buddhaghosa's 5th c. AD Visuddhimagga) for developing metta and (more or less) karuna. (FWIW, in the Visuddhimagga, one first develops compassion not by contemplating a "dear person" but by contemplating a "wretched man" and then an "[imprisoned] evil-doer" ....) I think too though that it's worthwhile keeping in mind that another article mentioned in an end note you created seemed to reference the Tibetan 12th c. (?) practice of lojong. Now, I defer to your obviously greatly superior knowledge about this research topic (and appreciate your patient explanations), but it sounds like the scientific research being discussed here actually incorporates various meditation practices from various Buddhist traditions.

In other words, based on my extremely limited review of your thoughtfully identified on-line material, it appears that "compassion meditation" is currently used in the scientific literature to refer to various meditation (including non-Buddhist perhaps?) techniques including the development of metta; thus, not all findings associated with "compassion meditation" necessarily apply to metta-meditation practitioners (just as, e.g., not all sports research relates to baseball players). (And, confoundingly, the "development of compassion" in the Pali literature is similar to but different from developing metta, e.g., see the Visuddimagga, Ch. IX, para. 77-83).

So, just for starters, kinda brainstorming, I'd like to suggest the following possible options:

(a) in this "Metta" article, create a section entitled something like "Recent research findings" and then include in that section the findings based solely on studies that clearly identify the use (e.g., in the "Methods" section) of traditional metta practices as identified in this article (and thus, implicitly, as practiced by Buddhists around the world); relatedly, I'd also like to strongly recommend replacing the introduction's phrase, "also known as 'compassion meditation'," with perhaps a sentence along the lines of: "The empirical efficacy of metta meditation is the subject of contemporary scientific research into so-called 'compassion meditation' techniques."
(b) in the "Buddhist meditation" article (in which I see you've made some in-roads recently), add a similar section or subsection (entitled, e.g., "Contemporary research") which can incorporate findings related to all such Buddhist meditative practices;
(c) if you've got the time and interest and are willing to withstand scrutiny by WP gatekeepers and possible contentious article deletion, I think it might be worthwhile attempting the creation of an article on "Compassion meditation." You'll have to fend off queries on why such should not be incorporated in other articles, e.g., Buddhism and science, Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology, Buddhism and psychology or Health applications and clinical studies of meditation -- or, perhaps after reviewing these articles, you'll find the material you want to write about can find a home in one of these.

Does this make sense -- trying to better articulate in this WP article the relationship between contemporary "compassion research" and traditional "metta" practices? I hope so. If not, I'd welcome your further responses, if you've the time and inclination. Alternately, if you'd be open to it, I'd be happy to try to make the above changes to this WP article and then, if you're inclined, you can completely revert what I wrote and/or make additional changes. (If you revert what I write, I promise not to re-revert :-) )

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness, patience and commitment to sharing your knowledge for the betterment of all, Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been very kind. I agree with your intention to create a part of this page in which modern research efforts can be cited. I definitely agree that the Buddhist Meditation page needs a mention of metta on it somewhere.

On definitions... I think that compassion meditation would include the development of all the four wholesome factors, or divine abodes as how, "In Theravāda Buddhism, karuṇā is one of the four 'divine abodes' (brahmavihāra), along with loving kindness (Pāli: mettā), sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha)." Khenpo Nyima Gyaltsen Rinpoche, a teacher at the Drikung Kagyu college, has described bodhicitta to me as both the wish to bring others to happiness and to free them from suffering. I think this means in the ultimate sense of enlightenment, as well as in terms of heaven and hell. So in practice, then, perhaps these two, karuna and metta, are not so different. Also, I think there is some element of equanimity in compassion meditation, especially how we do not wish for the Blue team to win a war, nor for the Red team to win a war - we would wish for there to be no war, to be no suffering as a result of greed, and instead for there to be peace and happiness. At least in this sense then, I think equanimity is a factor in compassion meditation. This point of not judging someone, or expecting something from them, is also echoed in that Ricard interview above and in this video with Tania Singer, http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/89 . So it seems then that the section you've blockquoted above, as well as the definition given by Singer and Ricard are both much in line with the statement that compassion meditation is the cultivation of all four of the divine abodes listed at the top of this paragraph.

I think we might expect difficulties as we go along with the definitions of meditative practices in general. As The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness states, on the topic of the first section of one of it's chapters,

"The first section,

'Defining Meditation,' notes the need for a more precise understanding of meditation as a scientific explanandum. Arguing for the importance of distinguishing the particularities of various traditions, the section presents the theory of meditation from the paradigmatic perspective of Buddhism, and it discusses the difficulties encountered

when working with such theories."

It seems then that scientists themselves are criticizing each other at the moment for not having precise enough definitions in their studies. Then also, as John Dunne said in one of the links I gave above, there are many differences in the theory of a single Buddhist tradition as well as even larger differences in the phenomenologies of various Buddhist traditions that are practiced in disparate parts of the world.

As for your suggestion c), personally, I am way too busy, and have too little time on the net as it is, to even consider such a wild and crazy expedition. Even now, I have two movies to watch and it's thirty minutes past midnight already.

I like your rephrasing of the introductory sentence. Also, do you think that the cultivation of metta is generally practiced alongside the cultivation of the other three "divine abodes"? makeswell 04:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Alright, so Matthieu Ricard summarized compassion, which is altruistic love applied to suffering, here: http://fora.tv/2009/10/16/Matthieu_Ricard_Speaks_on_Compassion I'm still waiting for a definition of what compassion meditation is...!makeswell 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)
Hi Makeswell -
It sounds like we're agreed upon two things (and, for me, this more than suffices :-) ):
(a) rephrase the current intro sentence to indicate that metta practice is included under the current umbrella of "compassion research"
(b) create a section where modern research can be cited
I'll try to implement this within the hour. And, again, if you disagree with my changes, feel free to revert/modify (or, of course, discuss further here :-) ). Due to time constraints, I no longer persist in editing articles in a manner contrary to another editor's desires/expectatoins.
Regarding the mention of metta on the Buddhist meditation page, it's actually there, under the From the Pali Commentaries section (fourth bullet) :-) .
Regarding your question, "do you think that the cultivation of metta is generally practiced alongside the cultivation of the other three 'divine abodes'"? -- yes and no. "Yes," because both ancient (e.g., the Visuddhimagga) and modern (e.g., Sharon Salzberg's Lovingkindness) texts on metta will generally mention the other three abodes in some subsidiary context. "No" because metta practice is a core Theravada Buddhist meditation practice exemplified by the fact that the Metta Sutta is (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi and others) the most popular and widely recited sutta in the Theravada Buddhist world. In other words, practically speaking, in my two decades as a Buddhist meditator, metta is practiced very widely, while the actual practice of the other abodes is only touched upon at isolated times in ones practice.
You also asked for a "definition of what compassion meditation is." First, I think it is important to raise the issue of context. Please forgive me if I state the obvious and I hope you take no offense at my backstepping into some didacticism. This current article, Mettā, is entitled using a Pali word. Not Sanskrit. Not Tibetan. Not English. In my mind (admittedly, always iffy ;-) ), the article attempts to provide information about this word's earliest significant use (in the Pali Canon, e.g., in the quoted suttas), its subsequent development (e.g., in the Visuddhimagga), and in terms of contemporary practice (e.g., referencing -- though in serious need of citations -- its use and expectations by contemporary teachers and practitioners). The context for all of this is Theravada Buddhism. It is true that Tibetan Buddhism also uses the Pali Canon, but Tibetan Buddhism has its own diverse and enormous canon in which the Pali literature is often treated as preliminary, elementary material.
Each of the sources of yours that I have seen (which, admittedly, is just a few articles) is based on the teachings of a Tibetan monastic, geshe, rinpoche. And, while I have an enormous respect for Tibetan Buddhists (e.g., my wife has such a practice and we've taken our son to a local center), this article is not about the Tibetan concept of "compassion." This article is not entitled, for instance, "Compassion (Buddhism)." Relatedly, although, again, if what I write is incredibly obvious to you, please, forgive my pedantic tone, while Tibetan Buddhism (as well as Mahayana Buddhism in general) extols "wisdom and compassion," and perhaps as a result subsumes many earlier thoughts and practices under these two concepts, the Theravadin tradition does not elevate compassion to the level of wisdom (paññā); in fact, the Pali canon clearly identifies in different ways that compassion is a less important "abode" than either "sympathetic joy" (mudita) or "equanimity" (upekkha). And each of these bodes are very distinct in the Theravadin literature. And their practice is not required to achieve enlightenment in the Theravadin literature. (This might partly have to do with the distinction between arahants and bodhisattvas — but that's a whole nother can of maggots!)
I include this issue of contextualization here because, when you ask for a "definition of what compassion meditation is," I will provide the answer from what I understand to be the context of this current WP article, which is the Pali literature and Theravadin culture. (This is very different, I believe, than if we were to contextualize your question within a Tibetan Buddhist perspective.) To provide but one answer to your question, the following is an excerpt from Nanamoli Bhikkhu's popular translation of the 5th c. AD Visuddhimagga (1975/1991, Seattle: BPS Pariyatti Ed., pp. 306-7):
One who wants to develop compassion should begin his task by reviewing the danger in lack of compassion and the advantage in compassion.
And when he begins it, he should not direct it at first towards the dear, etc., persons [as is done in the development of metta]....
In the Vibhanga it is said: 'And how does a bhikkhu dwell pervading one direction with his heart endued with compassion? Just as he would feel compassion on seeing an unlucky, unfortunate person, so he pervades all beings with compassion' (Vbh. 273). Therefore first of all, on seeing a wretched man, unlucky, unfortunate, in every way a fit object for compassion, unsightly, reduced to utter misery, with hands and feet cut off, sitting in the shelter for the helpless with a pot placed before him, with a mass of maggots oozing from his arms and legs, and moaning, compassion should be felt for him in this way: 'This being has indeed been reduced to misery; if only he could be freed from this suffering!'.
But if he does not encounter such a person, then he can arouse compassion for an evil-doing person, even though he is happy, by comparing him to one about to be executed.... [A] bhikkhu whose meditation subject is compassion should arouse compassion for an [evil-doing] person even if he is happy: 'Though this poor wretch is now happy, cheerful, enjoying his wealth, still for want of even one good deed done now in any one of the three doors [of body, speech and mind] he can come to experience untold suffering in the state of loss.'
Having aroused compassion for that person in that way, he should next arouse compassion for a dear person, next for a neutral person, and next for a hostile person, successively in the same way....
I can go on. Please let me know if I've missed your point or if I could possible share some other information that might be of interest. And, of course, thank you once again for all your shared erudition, patience and good faith.
With metta,
Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I didn't overstep in my last change: I combined the two different "methods" provided (that is, the long-standing Visuddhimagga method and the recently added material from Ricard, et al.) into one section; and, put this "methods" section over the recently created "benefits" section.
I'd like to emphasis that (while perhaps not obvious from WP's "compare" tool) I did not change a single word in any of these edits (outside of the intro phrase we tentatively agreed to changing above); I just thought that, from a regular WP reader's viewpoint, it might be most beneficial to read the basic "methods" prior to reading about the benefits. (I did add some prefatory words just to introduce sectional and subsectional material, as recommended in the WP guidelines.)
Again, hope my change is not seen as overstepping or detrimental. Please discuss/revert/modify if so, of course. Be well, Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it Larry! Good work! :) The page looks perfect! Thanks as well for helping me to understand the difference of compassion in Tibetan and in other contexts. I would like to read that book you keep quoting at some point. Also, just by the way, tonglen seems very similar to some of the practices mentioned here since one also radiates compassion; then again, I suppose, imho, that a union with the Divine omnipresent, like formless Siva-Sakti, would also be a radiating. There's also mention of radiating in The Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa, especially further towards the tenth bhumi. Anyways, I like what you've done with the page; I'm very glad that our conversation led to such a beneficial and happy product. :)
makeswell 03:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)
Makeswell - it does my heart good to read that you like the implementation of what we discussed. Kudos to you, once again, for your excellent edits, laudable erudition, and willingness, patience, caring and intelligence for collaborating so thoughtfully. Also, I appreciate your mentioning tonglen -- what a wonderful, powerful practice, and, as you indicate, I agree, it does seem to resonate with metta both in terms of the fundamental physical mechanism and the generated intention -- and the additional pertinent Tibetan resources. May our efforts serve others well. May we both attain our deepest spiritual aspirations. - Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Makeswell,
FWIW, I found a passage in Trungpa Rinpoche's "Training the Mind & Cultivating Loving-kindness" that links metta development to tonglen; so, I've updated this WP article's intro to reflect such. I wonder if there is a stronger means to link these two (e.g., historically)?
Also, hope you don't mind, rather impulsively, I moved the relatively new Ricard intro material that seems to tie metta towards oneself with metta towards others to an end-note in the Visuddhimagga section. If you disagree with this particular change, feel free to revert. Frankly, I think this change is for the best, but should have checked in with you first; if you revert, I'll leave it be.
Hope you're doing well,
Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Regarding the cultivation of loving kindness towards oneself, this is not specifically recommended by the Buddha himself in the pertinent canonical discourses but is inferred in the commentarial literature from other discourses.
  2. ^ http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/87
  3. ^ Richard Davidson in "Train Your Mind Change Your Brain" saying how happiness is like fitness or any other skill and can be practiced like practicing to swing a bat

Visuddhimagga & Matthieu Ricard

[edit]

Hi Makeswell!

Would you mind if the paragraph that you newly added ("Matthieu Ricard, a Tibetan Buddhist monk who has spent thousands of hours cultivating loving-kindness and compassion...") in the Mettā#The_Visuddhimagga_method:_six_stages section were moved to Mettā#Contemporary_trainings? The material in the "Visuddhimagga" section is all from the Visuddhimagga whereas the new paragraph does not come from the Visuddhimagga nor does it seem to directly comment on the Visuddhimagga per se. I think that section (on the Visuddhimagga) might be a little confusing because the unusually written subsequent paragraph ("For #2 avoid choosing someone to whom you feel sexually attracted....") does not state its source, but that is in fact a summary of material directly in the Visuddhimagga. (I'll provide an appropriate citation and perhaps wordsmith that latter paragraph some soon, just to clarify its pertinence.) Does this make sense? If so, would you feel comfortable moving the material or would you rather I do so?

Thanks again for sharing your admirable enthusiasm for the subject, laudable knowledge about current research and practices, and much appreciated collaboration skills. With metta, Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makeswell -
I re-read the text mentioned above and I think I understand why you have inserted it in the Visuddhimagga section of this article: You've identified material from Matthieu Ricard that seems consistent with the Visuddhimagga's exposition on cultivating metta.
I think it's great that you're able to make these connections and it's inspiring that diverse teachings resonant with each other's wisdom.
In terms of this article, I think it's important to keep a sense of proportionality, especially because this is a very long article already. For me to better articulate my thoughts on this, I think it might be helpful if I get a little more autobio. When I first learned metta meditation, I learned it reading Sharon Salzberg. The resultant meditative states were wonderful; and, I wanted to share it with everyone. So, I came to this article and, lo and behold, found existing material -- none of it mentioning Salzberg and most based on the work of FWBO's Kamalashila. Had I the time, in my single-source bias, I probably would have deluged this article with material from Sharon Salzberg -- much as you are currently doing with material from Ricard. As it is though, I didn't; and, over time, I found that while Salzberg appealed to me, that Kamalashila appealed equally to others, and that both sourced their techniques ultimately in the compendious Visuddhimagga (though Kamalashila, I think, is much more eclectic); which is by and large an expansion or documentation of techniques grounded in the Pali Canon. In addition, prior to the Visuddhimagga, the Vimuttimagga was created which is similar to the Visuddhimagga but which, for various reasons, lacks its historical significance (and, for this matter, is currently relegated to an end note in this article).
So, the question becomes, how to balance and organize all these sources? (And, of course, there are dozens of other pertinent sources, I suspect.) At the moment, I think if one were to read this article, based on the intro and first section of this article, one would think that half the history of metta pertains to Ricard's work. And, I think even you realize, this is far, far from the truth. Ricard is simply one of many rightfully popular contemporaries who has incorporated traditional material into his practice and teaching.
So, in an attempt to restore some more balance to this article, while wanting to recognize your continued enthusiasm for Ricard's work, in the text regarding the Visuddhimagga, I'm going to explicitly mention Salzberg's and Kamalashila's teachings, along side Ricard's. In addition, the material you recently added in this section regarding Ricard, I'm going to move to an end note substantiating the claim that Ricard teaches from this context to some degree.
I hope this seems fair to you. I hope you recognize the lopsided sets of information we both bring to this article -- yours regarding Ricard, mine regarding the Pali canon, Vimuttimagga, Visuddhimagga, Salzberg and Kamalashila. If you think there is a wiser method for better integrating all our knowledge, please share here.
Thanks so much again,
Larry 24.136.253.60 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move training portions to Wikiversity

[edit]

The training sections of this article would be more valuable if they are moved to the Wikiversity course on Meditation. Lbeaumont (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding the citation of controversial studies

[edit]

I would completely drop the whole part about "scientific" studies on the subject as the aim of the article and the aim of Wikipedia as a whole is to explain things and not to try to make converts or to convince people.

Furthermore, the subject "effects of meditation" is completely unrelated to the explanation of Mettā and absolutely unnecessary and distracting.

My aim visiting the page, such as the aim of many others, as to gain insight on the subject in regards to a wider understanding of Buddhist rites traditions and not to be convinced to join a meditation course.

Normally in other parts of Wikipedia when there is a part (specially scientific studies) that are disputed/disputable this is noted in several parts of the article, while here there is a total lack of it.

I could perfectly add my own edition including such as statement but I will for now abstain because I still need a good polishing of my style.

Thank you very much for your attention and may you be blessed by His Noodly Appendages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runlevel0 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mettā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about Brahmaviharas being only part of Tibetan tradition?

[edit]

I removed that because it's not in line with even Wikipedia lemma on Brahmaviharas! Then I get back 'we need to stick to the source'. The point is this whole Metta lemma does not give ANY source for the current sentence. And Bhrahmavihara lemma gives enough sources for them being universally Buddhist, e.g. footnote 16 there

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.126.than.html

I can easily remove the sentence again, but wonder where to put the footnote as there is no sentence at all which it backs; what I propose is simply removing a sentence without reference. Hope to get any useful feedback about why that would not be good...

Tnx, 11:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikdr (talk • contribs)

@Erikdr: I have reworded it and added sources. You are welcome to refine it further from additional WP:RS and per WP:LEAD. Thank you for the reminder on my talk page!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay THIS way I can live with it. I googled a bit on 'Brahmavihara retreat' and found them for 80-90% at centres that link them to Theravada teachings (Insight Meditation Society and Triratna), only a few at Tibetan centres. Now the text is more balanced. Tnx. Erikdr (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mettā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link: An essay on metta

[edit]

Hey, people. I’m sure one or more of you know what to do about this!

Broken link in External Links: An essay on metta by Acharya Buddharakkhita Slergs (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metta not Maitri

[edit]

I don't know which Sanskriti changed this, or for what reason, but this should listed be under /metta. Its not only historically inaccurate its someone's pet Sanskrit rather than common language (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to follow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.127.6.202 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications of the practitioner

[edit]

Karaniya Metta Sutta contains instructions on what type of person is the practice of metta intended to, and what qualities should one develop while practicing metta.

This is to be done by one skilled in aims who wants to break through to the state of peace: Be capable, upright, & straightforward, easy to instruct, gentle, & not conceited, content & easy to support, with few duties, living lightly, with peaceful faculties, masterful, modest, & no greed for supporters. Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure. Karaniya Metta Sutta

This is not mentioned in the main article, but it's very important for this subject. What do you think? Marino108LFS (talk 19:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning: Karaniya Metta Sutta (Sn 1.8)

[edit]

If living beings happen to be "ghosts, gods or hell-beings", how likely is it that they would be "happy-minded"? For is it not more likely that such evil beings would set out to deceive? Given their nature, would they not wish suffering on the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.41 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maitrī&oldid=1194709078"