mettā in commentarial tradition (refutation)

[bodom]

Thanks Bodom. That's one of the variations I linked to above of SN 3.8/ Ud 5.1: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=31557&start=20#p465428


Mike

Sorry Mike missed that somehow. I need to get a tablet as I use my phone to post the majority of the time and sometimes miss posts.

[mikenz66]

No problem! It's always good to repeat suttas...


Mike

[DooDoot]

"In four ways, young householder, should one who is the same in happiness and sorrow be understood as a warm-hearted friend:

(i) he reveals his secrets,
(ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
(iii) in misfortune he does not forsake one,
(iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake (jīvitaṃpissa atthāya pariccattaṃ hoti).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .nara.html

These are the only two sutta equivalents I could find, which seem to emphasis "dedication". This said, I think DN 31 is not about 'metta' but more about 'loyalty' of a true friend.

So the wanderers of other sects — unable to stand the veneration given to the Blessed One and the community of monks — went to Sundarī the female wanderer and, on arrival, said to her, "Sundarī, would you dare to do something for the benefit of your kinsmen?"

"What shall I do, masters? What can I not do? I have given up even my life for the benefit of my kinsmen! (Jīvitampi me pariccattaṃ ñātīnaṃ atthāyā)"

"In that case, sister, go often to Jeta's Grove."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .than.html

Rahula, whatever there is of a contemplative in anyone who feels no shame at telling a deliberate lie is empty & hollow just like that.

Rahula, it's like a royal elephant: immense, pedigreed, accustomed to battles, its tusks like chariot poles. Having gone into battle, it uses its forefeet & hindfeet, its forequarters & hindquarters, its head & ears & tusks & tail, but keeps protecting its trunk. The elephant trainer notices that and thinks, 'This royal elephant has not given up its life to the king.' But when the royal elephant... having gone into battle, uses its forefeet & hindfeet, its forequarters & hindquarters, its head & ears & tusks & tail & his trunk, the trainer notices that and thinks, 'This royal elephant has given up its life to the king (pariccattaṃ kho rañño nāgassa jīvitaṃ). There is nothing it will not do.

In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Concise Pali English Dictionary
pariccatta
pp. of pariccajati
given up; abandoned; left behind; bestowed.

PTS Pali English Dictionary
pariccatta
given up abandoned, thrown out, left behind Ja.i.69, Ja.i.174, Ja.i.477; Mil.280; Pv-a.178, Pv-a.219 (= virādhita); Sdhp.374.

pp. of pariccajati; cp. BSk. parityakta in meaning “given to the poor” Avs.i.3

[Dhammarakkhito]

Hi Dhammarakkhito
How do you see metta as a meditation practice? Would you see it as a contemplation or as a generating/attuning to a feeling or as one leading to the other/a combination of the two? Or something else altogether?

for me, developing the brahmavihāras attunes to a feeling, and the drawback of ill will is a contemplation.
generating the feeling of love which is warm formulates thoughts that are kind
https://suttacentral.net/mn52/en/bodhi

[Dhammarakkhito]

Many of us grew up in societies where we are taught to despise ourselves, not to have love for ourselves. It's simply not a given that people by default love themselves, and so self-love cannot be taken as a basis for the practice, as such self-love simply isn't automatically there

i would say the best way to overcome that is thru not asserting and defending a self to begin with!
"So too, bhikkhus, Māra the Evil One is constantly and continually waiting close by you, thinking,

'Perhaps I will gain access to him through the eye or through the ear ... or through the mind.'

Therefore, bhikkhus, dwell guarding the doors of the sense faculties. [...]
"When, bhikkhus, you dwell guarding the doors of the sense faculties, Māra the Evil One, failing to gain access to you, will lose interest in you and depart, just as the jackal departed from the tortoise."
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/ ... wp.htm#p1m


[Mara:]
Of what they say,
'This is mine';
and those who say,
'Mine':
If your intellect's here,
contemplative,
you can't escape
from me.

[The Buddha:]
What they speak of
isn't mine,
and I'm not one of those
who speak it.
Know this, Evil One:
you won't even see
my tracks.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "The Blessed One knows me; the One Well-gone knows me" — vanished right there.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

i have looked over ven dhammanando's break-down of the pāḷi, but i honestly have no idea what he is saying. i would have to remain discerning the text with reference to other texts, in english

1. Can what the suttas call "mettā" be aptly compared to maternal love?
2. Can an affirmative answer to the above question be supported by appealing to the mother simile in the Mettasutta?

Thanissaro is giving a no answer to the second question: repudiating the common use made of the Mettasutta in support of the "mettā = maternal love" comparison. But your post seems aimed at arguing for a yes answer to the first question and as such doesn’t really touch on what Thanissaro is saying.

just want to say i understand this, ok if my case isnt sufficient, and so vice versa

[Dhammarakkhito]

continued because i could only fit so many screenshots. certainly, friendship is not mettā, but where it involves self-sacrifice, mettā even more so does

[DooDoot]

certainly, [private] friendship is not [boundless] mettā

I posted that; when refuting the view about DN 31 that was posted here.

but where it involves self-sacrifice, mettā even more so does

Private friendship involves self-sacrifice because it is self-centred. Where as boundless metta, not being self-centred, does not support self-sacrifice.

[Dhammanando]

i have looked over ven dhammanando's break-down of the pāḷi, but i honestly have no idea what he is saying.

To put it less pedantically:

In pop Buddhist presentations of mettabhāvanā, verse seven of the Karaṇīyamettasutta is often read as saying that one should love all beings as a mother loves her only child.

Thanissaro thinks that they're wrong to read it this way. In his construal it is the mettā-ful state of mind that is to be developed as a mother guards her only child.

The point of my post was to show that the grammar of the passage clearly supports Thanissaro's construal, not the pop Buddhist one.

And so when you stated that you disagreed with Thanissaro and were going to substantiate this I would have expected you to present some argument showing that the simile doesn't mean what Thanissaro thinks it means; rather, it means whatever you think it means.

Instead you posted a reply that doesn't touch on the Mettasutta at all.

[DooDoot]

“Just as a mother would protect her son, her only son, with her own life,
Even so should one develop a state of mind without boundaries with respect to all beings.”

Thanissaro thinks that they're wrong to read it this way. In his construal it is the mettā-ful state of mind that is to be developed as a mother guards her only child.

Brilliant. The practitioner should guard/watch over their own mind to maintain universal metta; similar to how a mother guards/watches over her only child. Thank you for the clarification of the Pali Venerable Dhammanando. At least to me, it makes perfect sense.

[Dhammarakkhito]

doodoot, it would be self-centred to cling to one's life in a situation where sacrificing one's life to save another is called for. this is my standpoint, and it may not be resolved by just referring to the texts
this is also why i referred to the jātaka, where the bodhisatta sacrifices himself
so, why would one sacrifice their life to cultivate mettā instead of sacrificing their life as a result of love and care for another's wellbeing
this is the complete opposite of how i render this sutta
'humble, easily supported, and [again] not conceited', it is all about diminishing self-view
for the record, here is ven thanissaro's translation:
"As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings."
https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/at ... an.ati.htm
the first sutta i was going to share was abhaya sutta to substantiate my interpretation.

mother just as her son, her only son, with her own life would guard, even so with regard to all beings, state of mind [one] should develop without boundaries
or
mother just as her son, her only son, with her own life would guard, even so, state of mind with regard to all beings [one] should develop without boundaries

i'll have to look at it later if at all, it is interesting nonetheless to receive this alternate interpretation. i wouldn't say ven ñāṇananda was a pop culture buddhist

[binocular]

doodoot, it would be self-centred to cling to one's life in a situation where sacrificing one's life to save another is called for.

Called for by whom??!

Can you answer that?

When does there arise a situation where one is called to sacrifice one's life for another?

Who could possibly be worthy of such sacrifice??

What can be hoped to be accomplished by such a sacrifice?

this is also why i referred to the jātaka, where the bodhisatta sacrifices himself

And the Jatakas are about an unenlightened being. Or do you think that sacrificing oneself for the sake of another is what propels one on the path toward enlightenment?

so, why would one sacrifice their life to cultivate mettā instead of sacrificing their life as a result of love and care for another's wellbeing

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

This isn't about caring for others. It's about dying in a good state of mind, while the body is horribly tortured by people. It's about not giving in to ill will even when one's life is at stake. It is in this sense that one "sacrifices one's life for goodwill".

i'll have to look at it later if at all, it is interesting nonetheless to receive this alternate interpretation. i wouldn't say ven ñāṇananda was a pop culture buddhist

He might have been someone who could take his self-love for granted.

[DooDoot]

this is also why i referred to the jātaka, where the bodhisatta sacrifices himself

Jātaka also include stories about animals that talk. It appears the Buddha did not teach the Jātaka.

As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings."

Venerable Dhammanando explained this comprehensively. Based in the linguistic structure of the Pali, the 'mother-child' simile (metaphor) does not refer to the method of practice. Metta is not dying for other people.

the first sutta i was going to share was abhaya sutta to substantiate my interpretation.

What exactly does the abhaya sutta say to substantiate your interpretation? Thanks

[Dhammarakkhito]

thats the thing, im not sure abhaya sutta does that. i could have been thinking of another one
yes ven dhammanando did that, but i dont know enough about pāli to refute it, and it still clashes with my discernment. mettā is not dying for other people, true enough. mettā would also not be watching someone drown, when you could jump in and save them, even if it meant potentially being swept away
other suttas come to mind where life is shown to be not worth clinging to, this doesn't mean go trying to end your life, nor does it mean trying to preserve it, there are higher alternatives. the buddha referred to 'birth stories' in one sutta, and i have seen that considered to be referring to jātaka. aren't there animals that talk in the suttas too? binocular, have you seen the movie titanic. jack saved rose by letting her float on that plank of wood
yes the bodhisatta's sacrifice is considered extreme merit making, it's not necessarily authentic but that doesn't mean we can't learn from it
good point using simile of the saw, i would have said the development of love comes before the being carved up, my responses aren't as refined as i'd like them to be but i'm happy if this post is helping anyone

[binocular]

binocular, have you seen the movie titanic. jack saved rose by letting her float on that plank of wood

And I didn't see it just once. The dramatic romantic events in the film are just elements of telling an engaging story that is meant to attract as many people as possible. Romantic self-sacrifice is appealing to the uneducated, dreamy, sensuality-hungry, pathos-filled masses. For cinema purposes, it's a money-making strategy.

[DooDoot]

mettā would also not be watching someone drown, when you could jump in and save them, even if it meant potentially being swept away

Well, since I know the ocean exceptionally well, I actually know when I could possibly help a person from drowning & when I could not. Its Easter holiday. Christ has risen!

There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.

John 15:13