Talk:Mettā
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Mettā, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Cut and Past
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)
[edit] In relation to the part added about insomnia, nightmares
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 actaully 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)
[edit] Metta Not Specifically Taught as Self-Directed by the Buddha
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] "practiced with mindfulness of breath ... prevent the loss of compassion"
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)
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)
[edit] The "object" of metta practice
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
