Talk:Maitrī

message: 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)
thread_title: Cut and paste

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In relation to the part added about insomnia, nightmares

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metta Not Specifically Taught as Self-Directed by the Buddha 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's been over a month without any response, so I made this change. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "practiced with mindfulness of breath ... prevent the loss of compassion" 

message: 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 themselvesRegarding 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. 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)
thread_title:  The "object" of metta practice 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move training portions to Wikiversity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Avoiding the citation of controversial studies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mettā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090911223531/http://www.metta.mobi:80/ to http://metta.mobi/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence about Brahmaviharas being only part of Tibetan tradition? 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:177.pali
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611145457/http://www.bodhgayanews.net/tipitaka.php?title=&record=9611 to http://www.bodhgayanews.net/tipitaka.php?title=&record=9611
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken link: An essay on metta 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Metta not Maitri 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Qualifications of the practitioner 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning: Karaniya Metta Sutta (Sn 1.8)