Analysis of Loving-kindness practice

[thelerner]

Like Liminal-luke I know there is some good stuff here but every sentence has 2 or 3 Buddhist jargon that not only do I not know what they mean, seems many are controversial amongst well intentioned Buddhists. I wish every now and then you'd throw us a bone and explain things in terms a layman would understand.

 

Maybe using simpler terms things would be less contentious (or not).

Edited January 5, 2015 by thelerner

[silent thunder]

As I sense it now... there is nothing I, nor anyone 'needs' to do... ever.

[Simple_Jack]

Thelerner, google is your friend (sometimes).

[thelerner]

Thelerner, google is your friend (sometimes).

true, but there is a certain value to writing simply in plain understandable language aimed at the general public. That's actually what attracts me to Buddhism, the simple clear explanations of human dynamics and psychology; its use of simple self evident statements of truth.

 

Analysis of Loving Kindness shouldn't have to take place in a jargonistic setting where every sentence contains words outside the vernacular of lay people. One shouldn't have to shpittle the phalangies in order to gshpungch the extopicies as if it were a bypolar transversed quantum effect.

 

Maybe its needed for concepts like dependent origination, but for simpler subjects, clear English should be possible and encouraged. Unless ones concept of Buddhism is so complex and convoluted it can't be explained without dictionary's, history books and frequent google searches.

Edited January 5, 2015 by thelerner

[doc benway]

I know it isn´t very Buddhist of me, but wouldn´t it be useful for somebody like myself--not very interested in Buddhism as a path but with a desire to be a more loving person--to do Metta practice without getting into the nitty gritty Buddhist meaning of the words?

 

Can´t I just wish myself and others happiness as I understand it at this moment--even if my understanding is naive, materialistic, and arguably mistaken--and cultivate love?

 

Liminal

Really good question -

I do think it is important to have a somewhat discriminating understanding of happiness for practices like these to be effective.

If one wishes others happiness in a materialistic and egoistic way, that is potentially reinforcing ignorance and generating additional karmic burden. It's pretty easy, however, when generating positive will towards others to simply focus on a wish or prayer that they be relieved of their problems and suffering. That's a safe bet and doesn't require much knowledge of Buddhist jargon. Just my $.02.

[Bubbles]

And additionally, there is the attitude or feeling to cultivate while practicing.

 

I don't know if it is apt to this conversation, and I am sorry if it isn't since I have hard times really following this thread, but when I first practiced Loving-kindness, I thought I had to create this feeling from scratch and that it should be done by will power.

It changed everything when I realized it was done from a loving-kindness feeling that was already there in me, that has no contrary, and that was just covered by transient thoughts and emotional material that comes with likes/dislikes. It was then easier to me to wish happiness to people I don't know, and people I didn't like.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

For anyone confused by what Simple_Jack's been saying, I'll try to break it down. With the warning that I am also just some guy on the internet.

 

Basically he's arguing that practices like loving-kindness (aka metta aka the first immeasurable [skt. brahmavihara]) aren't by themselves enough for awakening.

 

First noble truth: unawakened beings are subject to dukkha (explained here!) Second: because of grasping onto things and views, due to ignorance. Third: dukkha can be ended. Fourth: by the 8fold path, which can be broken down into virtue, concentration, and wisdom.

 

So - why is metta alone not enough? Because it doesn't have that wisdom in it to recognise the first noble truth, abandon the second, and achieve the third. It doesn't cut through the deep underlying views, grasping, etc that keep up dukkha, it gives you a refined but unawakened mind.

 

It builds up virtue and concentration, but for awakening, this has to be combined with insight into stuff like impermanence, dukkha, not-self... which you can get through vipashyana (insight meditation - paying close attention to experience in the present moment, noticing the impermanence, etc).

 

So, in closing:

*If you're a Buddhist practising metta, either focus on that until you have some good stable samadhi, then take up vipashyana as well. Or take up vipashyana as well now, so they develop together. Unless your teacher teaches a clever approach to metta which dovetails neatly into vipashyana - in which case, don't worry about this post.

*If you aren't a Buddhist, don't worry about this post.

[C T]

There is nothing to stop the mind turning towards the Dharma from employing Initial Scope teachings, of which practices like loving kindness belong. Mind turning towards the Dharma may or may not necessitate establishing/observing first the various conditions for refuge-taking. Some ad-hoc practitioners may not be comfortable with taking refuge but wants to incorporate Initial Scope teachings into their routine should be encouraged to do so, and saying that it will not lead to enlightenment is a little like putting the cart before the horse. If a practitioner's mental disposition is fertile enough, having already established affinity with the Dharma in previous lives, the Masters have said that merely hearing one of the 4 Immeasurables is enough to set the wheel of awakening in motion. Why is it necessary to dampen people's enthusiasm unnecessarily by implying the limitations (in this instance, of the 4 Brahmaviharas) when the very heart of BuddhaDharma is about emancipation from fetters? By alluding to certain limitations contained within certain scopes of teachings, we are being less encouraging than we should be, achieving nothing worthwhile except maybe advertise a certain tendency for intellectual and scholarly supremacy in discussions of this nature.

 

In this particular topic, Aetherous had specifically drawn attention to the various meanings contained within the practice of loving kindness, a most worthwhile investigation, imo, and CT had indicated that the Kalama Sutta would be a good source to gain further insight on how to create the right causes for loving kindness to take root. Did Aetherous indicate also that he wanted opinions on whether loving kindness can lead directly to enlightenment? If he did, CT must apologise for having missed that in his OP.

[Simple_Jack]

SOW, you've hit the nail on the head! Great post! Another source of confusion, is in the emphasis of the 4 immeasurables (i.e. loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity) as antidotes to the afflictions, in Tibetan Buddhism. In Theravada, they refer to them in that context, but also as positive mental factors that can be used as objects of meditation, in order to enter the form realm concentrations. Tibetan Buddhism, emphasizes them in the context of the training of bodhisattvas, as the cause for developing relative bodhicitta (after they have gone for refuge in the 3 Jewels and generated the aspiration to attain buddhahood to benefit all sentient beings i.e. bodhicitta). So, a person who's been taught according to the emphasis placed in Tibetan Buddhism, will not be familiar with the emphasis placed in Hinayana.

[Simple_Jack]

CT, you should have just referred Aetherous to lojong and lam-rim. Thelerner, even if I had bothered to substitute the jargon with their English translations, I think that the subtleties or what I'm referring to, would still not register if someone only has a rudimentary level of understanding of Buddhist concepts.

[Aetherous]

Basically he's arguing that practices like loving-kindness (aka metta aka the first immeasurable [skt. brahmavihara]) aren't by themselves enough for awakening.

 

Except, in the context of Mahayana, it is enough.

[Simple_Jack]

Aetherous, if you want to introduce your friend to metta meditation, without its contextual relation with the overall Buddhist path: tell that person to look on YouTube for guided meditations by Sharon Salzberg. You can also introduce that person to tonglen meditation. Recommending the "Metta Sutta(s)" is an option also.

[ChiForce]

Except, in the context of Mahayana, it is enough.

Huh...I thought you are supposed to help other sentient beings to become liberated. You really can't love and show compassion without sorting out the nature of your own emotional afflictions and suffering. Is a psychological fact. This sorting out would require wisdom. Otherwise, your compassion and kindness are nothing more than emotional attachments serving some subjective purpose.

Edited January 5, 2015 by ChiForce

[Jetsun]

I read about the life of the Dzogchen master Adeu Rinpoche in his book "Freedom in Bondage" http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Bondage-Adeu-Rinpoche/dp/9627341665/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420482584&sr=8-1&keywords=adeu+rinpoche and he says he practiced giving and taking of compassion in the regular well known way for most of the early part of his life, which helped him greatly during his imprisonment in the Chinese concentration camp, but during his imprisonment he met another great Buddhist master who explained the practice in a "non-dual" way, which completely transformed the practice into something far more powerful. So the practice may have depth beyond the surface appearance.

[Aetherous]

but during his imprisonment he met another great Buddhist master who explained the practice in a "non-dual" way, which completely transformed the practice into something far more powerful. So the practice may have depth beyond the surface appearance.

 

Yup. That's what I'm attempting to explore here in this thread...not a bunch of restrictions based on an incomplete understanding of Buddhist realization.

[Aetherous]

Huh...I thought you are supposed to help other sentient beings to become liberated. You really can't love and show compassion without sorting out the nature of your own emotional afflictions and suffering. Is a psychological fact. This sorting out would require wisdom. Otherwise, your compassion and kindness are nothing more than emotional attachments serving some subjective purpose.

 

That's why I want to explore the meaning behind each word.

 

Although I do think that it doesn't even matter...if you practice loving-kindness, you are literally cultivating bodhicitta (and not only relative bodhicitta as some would assume).

[Simple_Jack]

Aetherous, what I described are not "restrictions", it's a factual statement based on how I learned the Buddhist path. If you hadn't asked about the four immeasurables in the context of Buddhism: I would've just recommended metta meditation from the beginning if that's all you wanted to know. These practices, don't exist in a vacuum in Buddhism, so I would guess that these Buddhist masters had already received training in the Buddhist path before ending up in prison, and were using tonglen as a means to facilitate their training. Meaning they must already understood what it meant to go for refuge in the 3 Jewels and the importance of generating bodhicitta.

[Aetherous]

Yup, we all learn in different ways...it's all good. I don't mind you sharing your views in here in order to educate people. Actually I kind of like hearing your perspective. I don't personally take what you've been saying as factual statements, but it's not like we have to agree.

[liminal_luke]

I´m not very educated about this, but had a thought/question that might possibly pertain to the whole question of whether the Bhrahmaviharas (sp?) are only a relative practice that will take people only so far, or whether they lead all the way.

It seems to me that the counterbalance to the sometimes flowery seeming (to me) practice of Metta is the Bhramavihara of equanimity. Metta feels soft to me whereas there is something metalic and hardheaded about equanimity. Equanimity is very "I´ll be me, and you be you"--the antidote for codependence.

I´m wondering if there´s something alchemical that happens as practitioners wrestle with these two pulls of Metta and equanimity. Maybe something similar to the taoist process of alchemy that takes place at the intersection of yin and yang.

Perhaps Metta by itself is incomplete. But doesn´t the Bhramavihara of equanimity provide the necessary balance of wisdom?

Liminal

Edited January 5, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Simple_Jack]

I'm completely ok with that, but just understand: I'm not trying to give watered down info, on the motivation behind these practices in Mahayana, since you asked for the meaning in the OP. Anything said on here, can easily be double checked for accuracy, by asking for clarification from your teachers or doing a search on google (though you should be relying on the instructions received by your guru(s) first and foremost).

[Simple_Jack]

Liminal Luke, in the context of Theravada, the Buddha taught that the 4 brahmaviharas were a means to be reborn in the heavens of Brahma in the "Tevijja Sutta". They are taught to his disciples as a means to enter each of the form realm concentrations.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...during his imprisonment he met another great Buddhist master who explained the practice in a "non-dual" way, which completely transformed the practice into something far more powerful. So the practice may have depth beyond the surface appearance.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I meant when I said:

 

[if] your teacher teaches a clever approach to metta which dovetails neatly into vipashyana [...] don't worry about this post...

If the practice is being approached in a way cultivating compassion AND wisdom - relative and absolute bodhichitta - that's enough for awakening. If it's just about compassion, that's still brilliant and shouldn't be devalued, but it's not the whole path.

 

I'm currently working on realising no-self, so I might look into whether the various feelings and mental processes involved in the practice seem to involve a 'self' or not. Another person might focus on how all that stuff occurs in brief pulses, for impermanence. And so on.

[Simple_Jack]

When combined with insight the 4 brahmaviharas are a means to the cessation of the afflictions by attaining arahantship.

[ralis]

I have one quick question. If loving kindness is paramount in the Buddhist path, then why do some Buddhists on this forum engage in ad hominem attacks? E.g., calling others delusional that are not in agreement with Buddhist ideology.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...Perhaps Metta by itself is incomplete. But doesn´t the Bhramavihara of equanimity provide the necessary balance of wisdom?

IMHO, no - equanimity (as a brahmavihara) is the attitude that all beings are equally important. Having this doesn't mean you'll automatically cut through all views and grasping - for example, the idea that you are a 'self' meditating on the equality of all 'selves' may still be there. So you see, these are really fundamental perspectives on reality we're dealing with here.

 

To get that hardcore wisdom, you'd have to attend to impermanence, dukkha and non-self as they occur in your experience (i.e. practice vipashyana) until your mind really realises them, and lets go of all the stuff it's holding.

 

Equanimity alone isn't that, although it's an extremely virtuous mental factor. But of course, the same as before applies about the potential to use equanimity in vipashyana!