The following story comes in Udana 1.8 . It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son." The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman. We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna). In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding ", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this: > The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably > upekkha. **The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference > in the sense of unconcern for others.** As a spiritual virtue, upekkha > means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. > It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner > equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, > praise and blame, pleasure and pain. **Upekkha is freedom from all > points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of > the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the > well-being of one's fellow human beings.** True equanimity is the > pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the > "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic > joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the > preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji? Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering? The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

In "The Sublime Attitudes " the word "release" appears multiple times. What is meant by "awareness-release"? What is meant by "release of awareness"? Do both have the same meaning? Do they mean escape? As in, from becoming aware, I am released (from something). Do they mean potential attention (awareness), become manifest? Both, neither? Twice in the sutta the translator uses the phrase "no higher *release*" (without the word *awareness*). Is this significant? Help! :-)

Is Upekṣā (equanimity) a certain kind of feeling which if attained, everyone will feel in a similar way, or its a kind of numbness to sensory input? From the wiki the definition of equanimity says > is a state of psychological stability and composure which is > undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other > phenomena It is not clear to me, as a Brahmavihara, is it a special kind of feeling, or it simply is maintaining calm composure in all circumstances,kind of indifference attitude, but this sounds like if practiced, is certain kind of numbness to sensory input, meaning, no matter what is the sensory input is, you stop or repress any kind of feeling that may arise.

In discussions about how to translate words such as *averena* (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of *averena*, the first method renders '*love*', '*loving-kindness*', or whatever translation is used for *metta*; in the second, '*non-hatred*' is the translated concept. This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first). I know there are suttas like [AN 11.1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like [SN 47.19](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.019.olen.html) state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of *Brahmaviharas*, with *metta*, *karuna*, *mudita* and *upekkha* as mind-states to cultivate. Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from *sotapanna* to *arahant*) *Samma Sankappa* is broken down as *nekkhamma*, *abyapada* and *avihimsa*, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate **the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome**, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness. After considering all of above, here's the question: **What would you say is the role of altruism** (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) **and other forms of positive** (as "presence of something", not as "good") **wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions**? **How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative** (as "absence of something", not as "bad") **wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?** EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective: As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know **how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter**. With that I mean: **what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?** My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough. I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views. I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

I read the books of Bhante Vimalaramsi that is using the practice of **Brahmavihara** to reach a state that is called Tranquil Aware Jhana and then to generate insights from the fourth rupa Jhana. Has anyone of you practiced using this method and reached the Jhanas? Has anyone gotten any insight? In his site, Bhante Vimalaramsi says that this method is much better and faster than one pointed concentration to reach Jhanas. The Jhanas are less powerful and better manageable and getting attached to the joy of them is much more difficult. Thank you, metta

Emotional intelligence is an ability to deal with one's emotions. I am wondering how does it affect and get affected by the practice of the Dhamma? Does deeper meditative absorption lead to heightened awareness and control of one's emotions and vice versa or are they completely unrelated? Also, does the 'feeling' skandha include feeling of one's emotions? Are there any wholesome emotions one feels as the practice deepens? Are the Brahmaviharas all there is to wholesome emotions?

Buddha has encouraged the practisioners to abide in the four Brahmaviharas.(Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upeksha) I have experience of Upeksha or Equianimity. After doing sitting meditation both Zazen and Anapana Sati my mind automatically enters into feeling of Equanimity albeit for small duration of 10-15 minutes, I feel calm and tranquil. However, when I feel Equanimity it seems like its impermenant, the mind changes after sometime. So how do I prolong this feeling of Equanimity?

For the last couple of years there has been growing research on so called compassion fatigue among social workers/therapists/social workers, and their likes. In short, compassion fatigue can be described as exhaustion and/or vicarious traumatization in different forms of healthcare/emotional labor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) . My question is - if and how - one can understand these phenomena based on buddhist dharma? As far as i understand there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas. A few personal hypotheses is that compassion fatigue is the result of one or more of these factors: - an imbalance between the five indriyas/faculties and the five pancabalani/strengths, leading to - akusala padhana/unwholesome effort. - upadana, grasping for being overtly supportive at the expense of own health, or clinging to a self-view as a tireless helper. I realize this may seem counter to popular buddhist notions such as the brahmaviharas, for instance. I still can't help but wonder if this can explain compassion fatigue, or if there are other alternative interpretations based on a buddhist framework? (This is a sutta reference request)

Isn't this a kind of "opposite to empathy, compassion, metta"? Nowdays, householders(not all) have cruel behaviour towards handicapped ones. If monk also declines to help, would that be called as compassion?

Someone, possible thought it might be compassionate, stated: >Also (next to compassion), when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. Possible to have real compassion or/and goodwill, not to speak about mudita and upekkha, without having one self floated with it. So is this true or the very base not traced? Possible Nihilist-Trap? Possible that certain Kings at Buddhas times have been wiser and more compassionate as intellectuals may ever be? Possible not seen the qualities of Ariyasāvakas and thought in common terms? *[Note: this question is one of compassion and not thought for trade, exchange, stackes, Buddh-ism, or whatever binds to the low.]*

I have been going through this dilemma for almost a year now in choosing a meditation object.. I only wish to take one meditation object.The reason being i maintain this object through out the day and i gather momentum with it.I noticed if i practice two meditations even if it's very short i lose momentum with my previous one.I think because i've inclined the mind towards one object so when it switches i am not developing much concentration. The main problem i have is i really love and enjoy anapanasati.Piti and sukha are quite developed so i enjoy it very much and can sit longer. I can gather momentum,its relatively easy to turn my attention to the breath through out the day..now here's the bad part... MY EXTERNAL situations in life just seem bleak,unfriendly,uninspiring,lonely,dull i start getting emptier and emptier like less socialising less entertainments moving towards like a letting go type of life it's freeing and a relief except nobody is friendly around me.Like things are just DRY and uninspiring around me. On the other hand when i practice Brahmaviharas,the result are immediate and everything around me is great,people are friendly,i feel protected from harm,pleasant situations.HOWEVER,i don't really prefer this meditation object because it's tiring and i can't sustain it through out the day repeating phrases.Its tiring basically.Also it's not as still as anapanasati which i prefer but if i don't practice the brahmaviharas life just gets very bleak very fast.When i do practice even for 5 minutes everythings just annoyingly great and sugary sweet.Its really wearing me out trying to choose. Should i just ignore being afraid of unpleasant situations and emptiness/seclusion and incline the mind towards the breath which i know i can make progress or should i just do brahamaviharas and keep everything around me happy? Thanks

This page of [Dhamma Lists](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) includes, > **Four Brahma-viharas (Highest Attitudes/Emotions)** > Heavenly or sublime abodes (best home). Near enemy is a quality that can masquerade as the original, but is not the original. Far enemy is the opposite quality. > 1. Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred 2. Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty 3. Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy 4. Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed Given that "pity is the near enemy of compassion", then what is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity' (e.g. what is present in compassion but absent in pity, or vice versa)? Does knowledge/awareness of that difference somehow inform your intentions and/or actions?

In the context of the sutta below, what does the following phrase mean? - "**whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along**" (*yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ; na taṃ anugaṃ bhavissatī’ti*) This phrase seems to apply to one who practises the Brahmaviharas . How is it different for one who does not practise the Brahmaviharas (or the Dhamma in general, for that matter)? What does deed-born body (*karajakāya*) really mean? Also related is the phrase "**A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core.**" (*Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. Cittantaro ayaṃ, bhikkhave, macco.*). What does this mean? From AN 10.219 : > “What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the > liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion, > altruistic joy and equanimity) from his childhood on, would he do a > bad deed?” > > “No, Bhante.” > > “Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For > on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?” > > **“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by > loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity). > A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals > have mind as their core.** > > “The noble disciple understands: **‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the > past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will > not follow along.’** When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and > also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) has been developed in > this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does > not penetrate to a further liberation.

Are there references that the Buddha taught such as metta-meditation to householders (wordlings, without complete Sila), giving ground for hypocritical practice, agree with such, in manners of: "There is the case where a householder..."? Didn't he not focused on getting right view and Silas first? Was modern householder-metta-meditation ever taught, even trained by the elders, such as doing it inbetween business as usual? *[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to maintain houses but for liberation and with non-hypocratical metta: may all beings give causes to find there way out for themselves with ease.]*

*Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.* Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta. ; > MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies **"equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations**. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines **equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana**, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana. As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana. My question is, **How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself**? The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as **peaceful and exquisite**, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

So while reading a lot of teachings, especially "higher" teachings, a great deal is mentioned about dispassion in worldy things, unattractiveness in the body and various contemplations on death. It's quite easy to get lost in these kind of contemplations without developing the Brahmaviharas to feel something positive (especially social positive emotions are important for humans). I'm wondering if positivity is highly stressed in Buddhism? On the one hand the brahmaviharas are not withot reason called "the divine **abidings**". So I think one needs to dwell in them as much as possible. Also the last two points of Right Effort stress the importance of cultivating and maintaing positive emotions. On the other hand though, being non-delighted in things makes this look rather grim. Maybe I haven't read much Suttas on Compassion, loving kindness, generosity etc..

I read once, online, someone (perhaps in the Tibetan tradition if that matters) saying that the four brahmaviharas are inter-related -- in particular, that too much of one is counteracted by a bit of another. For example: - Feeling too sorry for someone (too much compassion/*karuna*) is counteracted by a bit of *mudita* (remembering the ways in which that person is virtuous or fortunate) - Similarly, too much of each of the other three is counter-balanced by a bit of each of the others I was reminded of it by [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24551/254) ("in good there is seed of bad"). I don't remember the explanation I read, though, and I wasn't able to find the reference again. Is that anything you've heard before? If you know the explanation but don't know a reference for it, that's OK too (I'd be happy to read just your explanation of it even without a reference).

I got introduced to Buddhist meditation through the practice of meta and the cultivation of the four bramaviharas. It was going well but I decided I needed the ability to separate my ego and my will. For this, I thought vipassana would be the right tool. After doing some readings, however, it became apparent that to properly do vipassana I would have to develop my concentration with samadhi. At this time I almost solely do samadhi concentration meditation. I am a lay person and feel I don't have time to do the different meditation sessions per day, one each for meta, samadhi, and vipassana. Yet I see benefits in them all and would like to master all three. Do you have any guidelines on how to incorporate different styles of meditation into my practice? Is it best to stick with one for a while, then move on to another? Is it best to rotate on a daily basis? Is it best to do a combination of all three in one sitting? Also, the question can be repeated for meditating on the four bramaviharas. Is it best to do them one by one, all at once, or something else?

In Maha-Rahulovada Sutta monk Rahula asks the Buddha for instructions on developing Anapanasati. The Buddha didn't directly give instructions to him of Anapanasaati but instead, gives instructions on developing Anatta on the earth property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property, & the space property. > "Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property, & the space property." It also states developing the **four Brahma Viharas, the perception of Unattractiveness and Impermanence.** After that only the Buddha gives instructions on **Anapanasati**. I also have heard that for the people who are untrained in Anapanasati, they may meditate on the elements and then go to Anapanasati. (Some say it is better to do this way since not doing Anapanasati properly can lead to difficulties in the mind) PS - I tried the above approach and it was somewhat smoother than directly going into Anapanasati. **Q1.** Is doing Dhatu manasikara first and doing Anapanasati afterward a smoother and an effective way of doing Anapanasati? **Q2.** Also, can I know the simple explanation of what these actually mean > I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication. > > I will breathe in sensitive to rapture. > > I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure. > > I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication > > I will breathe in calming mental fabrication. > > I will breathe in sensitive to the mind. > > I will breathe in satisfying the mind > > I will breathe in steadying the mind > > I will breathe in releasing the mind > > I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy. > > I will breathe in focusing on dispassion. > > I will breathe in focusing on cessation. > > I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment. What do these mean and how to achieve this is Anapanasati?

Ven. members of the Sangha (coming across here), Valued Upasaka, Upasika, Valued Team here and for awakening seeking readers, whether young or old, lay person or ordained, since child one would be trained in generosity after having made merits, may it be just a recitation, veneration, after a giving, after taking precepts, after a meditation session, after having listened to Dhamma. In traditional countries there are many deep and beautiful verses used an known. Here some may know a traditional recitation as sample: [Dedication of Merit](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/dhammayut/chanting_en.html#merit) - Do you know or even practice a certain Verse and feel inspired sharing it? - Do you know good and nice sources (not commercial but dedicated as Dana) of valuable Verses in various languages? Feel inspired to share you ways and possessions. If inspired to even share an audio of your recitation, feel invited to do such here: [Rejoice with others & sharing merits *pattanumodāna & pattidāna*](http://sangham.net/index.php/board,5.0.html) . You can link it into here and no need to take uninvited space or contracts anywhere. *[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.]*