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.

This applies to all superstitious people in general, but especially to someone very close. My mom is extremely ignorant and superstitious. She comes from an uneducated village background from a third world country. Due to ignorance of facts and lack of experience, she falls for any hearsay and produces strong emotions based on them, chiefly fear and worry. Example, she would read in the newspaper that somewhere in the Western world there was a homicide of someone from our country and she would get worried for me. she doesn't understand I am thousands of miles away from the place she has read about. The way she would spin stories out of what is actually written is truly fascinating. For example, 'A homicide of our countryman in the West' becomes 'the people in the West kill our countrymen and throw them out on the streets!' She also, unconsciously, tries to nudge me and manipulate me into seeing the bad aspects of the western world - when in fact the "bad" aspects she tries to tell me are due to her lack of understanding of facts and they are unfounded in reality. An example, she would tell semi-fabricated stories like that to me over call like the homicide one above. I have pointed out this mechanism to her multiple times to make her conscious of the fact-manipulation etc. even with examples. But I am now thinking she doesn't have the awareness to grasp this kind of "theoretical" understanding. Anyways, usually I just point out the falsehoods and switch topics. But last call I was dumbfounded by the extent of this and in order to really make her aware of this I may have said some words which were true but may be hurtful. Something like "you are acting like a 5 yo child who doesn't understand the basic knowledge and gets scared like that". I remember persisting on it a little because I wanted her to see the mistake there, and I feel pity towards her for suffering constantly on these untrue things. Now she is hurt from me because of this incident. I feel guilty and sad to hurt her with words and I have been crying. But at the same time I feel sorry for her for tormenting herself day after day and year after year due to ignorance of basic understanding of science and world. What should be done in this case? Should I ignore her manipulating and let her suffer although that doesn't seem right..? But I can't either try to show her truth for that either is ineffective or it involves hurt. Have you been in similar situation before?

In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments). However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate? Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant? Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as: > Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings > in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of > suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected > in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid > where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of > reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is > Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when > one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two > enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is > cruelty.

To alleviate someone from suffering, Buddhism teaches one to practice [mettā](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81) [karuṇā](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karu%E1%B9%87%C4%81) . But it seems to me that to thinking good about someone and wish them the best, we need to have a better version of the suffered person, so that we can disagree with their current version. If we don't have that image, then we wouldn't say the suffered person is suffered at the beginning. Thus, it seems correct to say that in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment? Since this attachment is necessary, then I think it's fine to have? For example I ask this question, thus I have some attachment to it, and that's fine. I think this is related to the conventional truth and absolute truth. So is it correct the in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment to begin with? Edit: One can simply say that the better version of that person is just a ideal fabrication of them (because they are not actually like that), or just the good side of them that they always have but not shown yet. In either case, I think it's necessary to [assume good faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) . Would that assumption be an attachment?
Related: • [Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11859/13525) • [How to view people with metta and karuna?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/24615/13525) • [Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33370/13525)

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?

I feel like a very cold and sensual person. Easily attracted to sensual pleasure but very cold and numb when it comes to bonding with other human beings. I want to change, and therefore I want to make a meditation plan in order to develop empathy, love and compassion for other human beings, and possibly extend it to all sentient beings in general. However, I'm not sure about how to make such a meditation plan. Based on your experience / knowledge, which meditation techniques are most effective to develop these emotions?

As far as I understand, Vipassana meditation trains attention and equanimity. Which makes sense because you are basically doing body scans all the time and remaining equanimous to bodily sensations, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. Cool. But ... how can you develop love, compassion and sympathetic joy by doing that? How can "watching equanimously your bodily sensations" make you a more loving and compassionate person? At best you should become a very neutral, equanimous, cold person with a very high level of awareness, but then how would you cultivate sympathetic joy, loving kindness, compassion? Does one need to complement vipassana with other techniques to develop those qualities?

There are definitions of *metta* and *karuna* here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/14307/254 There's a [tag:metta-bhavana] meditation. I'm wondering how to practice these socially, though, e.g. as a lay person when talking with people individually or in a group (or perhaps even as a monk talking with people). In particular what type of view should you try to have of (or see in) people? --- My question is sparked by [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24561/does-buddhism-have-an-answer-to-disturbing-sexual-fantasies#comment41376_24571) : > I posted the way of the Buddha, which is metta plus asuba. Asuba alone won't work. Metta is to view women as mothers, sisters & daughters rather than to view them as sex objects. If you can see that sexual promiscuity of women diminishes & often destroys the capacity for good motherhood, then you might understand the teachings of Gotama better. In summary, asuba is not really necessary for laypeople. It is generally pointless suggesting asuba to a layperson who does not have the disposition to be a monk. I found that comment questionable, because why not view women as people? Viewing "women" as "mothers" sounds like pigeon-holing "them" as just another type of sex-object (gender-specific-object) or social role/stereotype/function (slave). I mean, "yes" to *metta* -- but "metta" isn't necessarily to "view women as mothers", or is it? But then the question occurred, if metta *isn't* as described in the comment then what *does* metta mean? The reason I found the above comment questionable is because I expect a person (a woman) might view him- or her-self in a variety of ways: as a mother, as an adult child, as a consumer, as a worker, an athlete, a friend, a volunteer, a voter, and so on ... different views (different ambitions or roles) at different times. I think that holding a view of someone that isn't the same as their own current view of themselves is a form of harm and a cause of suffering (e.g. a view like "you can't be a friend because you're a woman", "you can't be an employee because you're a mother", "you can't be political because you're a girl", while she wants to be a friend or employee or etc). So maybe "sympathy" means that you should see other people as they see themselves? But someone's view-of-self might be a cause of suffering too, so maybe it's better if you *don't* try to see each person as they see themselves? Perhaps it's fantasy to hope that you can see others as they themselves, except in limited circumstances (e.g. in a job interview)? In summary this question (about metta and interacting with people) has devolved towards views-of-self and the thicket-of-views. --- So what can be said about metta and karuna, if they interact with identity-view, self-view? What does a kind of transactional behaviour (attitude) sound like (is it good or bad?) e.g. a view like, "you're a bus driver and I'm here because I'm on the bus ... it doesn't matter who you think you are, nothing matters except your driving the bus and me having an absolute minimum standard of politeness so as not to be actually offensive"? Sorry if this is a confused question. The suttas (e.g. [Sigalovada Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html)) necessarily talk about general truths, and ends up maybe seeming impersonal, cold, robotic, and I'm not sure if that's the right impression or the whole lesson.

Does wise practice of compassion ever lead to suffering or bliss for the practitioner? Is there a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana insight? If one is enlightened does that mean one is compassionate or fully compassionate? Why does wisdom lead to compassion or compassion lead to wisdom?

There seems to be this ongoing debate both within the Buddhist Tradition itself and with the world-at-large as to how a practitioner should relate to the world. The Buddha himself forsook his family and all worldly-pleasures in pursuit of a spiritual life prior to his enlightenment. Such practice and attitudes has largely been preserved within the Theravada tradition. The Mahayana, in particular its Chinese strain, stressed on the ability to heal the world within and without, to relate to all sentient-beings in a loving way through the practice of Metta and Karuna - the Bodhisattva way of life. Compared to the Christian Gospel of love, the Buddhist doctrine seems so much more rational and pragmatic - Metta is just a means to an end, not an end in itself; it is practiced just to help the yogi remove obstacles from his or her road to nirvana. It is not uncommon to find Buddhists who are aloof to worldly affairs and loving relationships - the yogi who chose to lead a life of solitude and inner-peace, in place of worldly pursuits; the vagabond who chose to wander in this world so that he may find his true home in another. My question would be: How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world?