I'm wondering about older sources for some of what Ven. Nyanaponika Thera says in this essay: - [The Four Sublime States: Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html) . For some of the claims, it's easy for me to realize what older text he's referencing - for instance his claims about why they are called sublime you can trace to Vism. IX 105. But specifically for his claims about how the four sublime abidings all suffuse each other, I'm having a harder time thinking of an older reference. Anyone know one? Or should these be categorized as his own claims? The passages I'm thinking of are these ones: > "How, then, do these four sublime states pervade and suffuse each > other? > > Unbounded love guards compassion against turning into partiality, > prevents it from making discriminations by selecting and excluding and > thus protects it from falling into partiality or aversion against the > excluded side. > > Love imparts to equanimity its selflessness, its boundless nature and > even its fervor. For fervor, too, transformed and controlled, is part > of perfect equanimity, strengthening its power of keen penetration and > wise restraint. > > Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from forgetting that, > while both are enjoying or giving temporary and limited happiness, > there still exist at that time most dreadful states of suffering in > the world. It reminds them that their happiness coexists with > measureless misery, perhaps at the next doorstep. It is a reminder to > love and sympathetic joy that there is more suffering in the world > than they are able to mitigate; that, after the effect of such > mitigation has vanished, sorrow and pain are sure to arise anew until > suffering is uprooted entirely at the attainment of Nibbana." etc.

My husband’s parents are very abusive now and in the past. Recently they’ve started bringing me into the mix, and so my husband decided to cut them out of our lives. They still text me to curse our marriage and say awful things about both of us. I know that filial piety is very important, but what if it’s an abusive situation? Does Buddhism teach anything about this?

I'm currently reading In the Buddha's Words by Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi. In the introduction to **The Way to a Fortunate Rebirth** he states that the roots of what make an action unwholesome (akusala) are: > "greed, hated and delusion" Well that confirms a hypothesis I got from reading Dawkin's The Selfish Gene that *'there are no truly altruistic actions'*. People often give to the needy to feel better, to get good karma, to get into heaven. Whatever the case may be they are giving for "greedy" reasons. They're own gratification in some form or another. There is no such thing as kusala. Unless you have a complete lack of self awareness and/or do it purely on instinct. Therefore I ask: **Is this not a paradox?** Is it even possible under the Dhamma to commit a wholesome act (kusala) like giving, without it being rooted in "greed"? Therefore making all positive actions such as donating to charity, giving to homeless, giving gifts, anything positive is actually unwholesome (akusala)?! In summary: **It's impossible to gain good karma without it being routed in your greed for good karma** I'd appreciate your ideas, discussion and/or answers?

I have been recently experiencing tremendous fear, but as I look through my eyes at the world and the objects it contains, the fear does not accord with what I see. The world itself is beautiful but people's minds seem tarnished by a neurosis. They seem to define themselves by this very neurosis. I notice all the little behavioural patterns they play and how they are trapped by them. I find this very fearful, and it affects my ability to integrate with people. Furthermore, I often find myself 'playing along' but knowing that I'm playing along. This seems disingenuous and somewhat incongruent. I have avoided television for 4 years because of this falsity, but it is becoming very prominent just now. Only the other day I caught a few seconds of a TV program where they were discussing Covid-19 death rates like it was some kind of sporting event. I find humans very peculiar. At the level of mind I am able to see the danger present in the world and act accordingly but this comes from a natural inclination instead of from a fear-based story. This doesn't stop me feeling fear for that mode of being we call samsara. It is possible - or highly likely - that this fear could be my own samsaric turmoil looking to find a footing in the world as someone who is fearful of others and that its real plight lies in keeping the wheel turning. My question is, from a Mahayana perspective, how can I come to love the samsara that I see in others? I'm happy to welcome answers from other traditions. Be well.

I understand that i act **harmfully** by my words also when i struggle at **hard** **situation**. (male 37 years old)  For example today forced my mother ( elderly) to do some work which i thought it could be good for her but dont consider her disability and health problem because of her Brain stroke like some partly depression and maybe her scares about her life. I think if have some view point of the reasons of happening  this situation could be useful to suggest proper meditation for this situation. So i think is because of becoming sensitive and like to be kind, so try to give her an advice which in during the conversation my reactions change to showing that i am leader or supportive but not in controled of others!.  so at this situation finally i sence her hurted by my words and reactions. ( my brother some times before said to me your **speaking tone** is some not interesting and maybe could be changed by some meditation?!!) Also sence to have cached by my psychological system and some other limitations , and can not find other situation and have **more freedom** for choosing some others actions and sensing more **kindly**. So what kind of **meditation** do you suggest for this situation to try?   Thanks for your attention.  

How can I be happy at other's happiness ? How can I develop my willingness to see others' being happy ? If I define a happiness level, scale of 0 to 100 about being happy at others' happiness, I think I'm at the 25-50 level. How can I promote it to 90-100 level ? Sometimes, I do loving-kindness meditation. But I'm looking for some kind of understanding / wisdom about being happy ? How can this help in path to the enlightenment ? Or Should I do loving-kindness meditation to gain that wisdom ?

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)

The following video got me thinking: [Machiavelli’s Advice For Nice Guys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQlnmWCPgA) Machiavelli believes that being kind and compassionate is good, but one often needs to learn to be harsh and ruthless in order to survive so that good may triumph. The best example would be the Axis Powers during World War 2 - if the Allies had been nice, they'd have been no match for the Axis Powers for their sheer ruthlessness. On a smaller scale in everyday life, it's the nicer, more helpful people who are constantly taken advantage of. So this raises a dilemma. Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten. Or react harshly when necessary and risk darkening ourselves. Or, is there a proper middle path? Yet, Buddhism has survived 2500 years and even flourished at a time where war and cruelty were rampant. So there must be something there, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Just expanding on this answer is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or of 'inner kindness' i.e. kindness to oneself. Or is it both or neither. I've come across both themes and both seem right but to me they contradict. Of course Buddhist is about many other things including outer kindness (to all beings) but right now I'm interested in these two aspects. Many thanks as always

The Buddha repeatedly said to avoid ignorant, immoral people as much as possible, but isn't this - at least a little - opposed to kindness? I associate kindness with being benevolent, caring & somewhat open. Am I missing here something? Thanks

I have a persistent fear of going without food that prevents me from giving monasticism a full shot. Some background: I suffered for approximately 4 years with something called cyclic vomiting syndrome. This is an affliction characterized by recurrent, prolonged attacks of severe nausea, vomiting, and prostration with no apparent cause. During this time I repeatedly lost and regained 100s of pounds at a time. Losing weight, while something I needed to do, was not fun. My longest single attack lasted a full 7 days during which time I was unable to keep any food down whatsoever, much less get any sleep. Retching on a completely empty stomach 45+ times an hour is a hell that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. So, food is important to me. At the same time I realize that too much is not good in a myriad of ways. So, where are all the Buddhist monasteries at which I'd be afforded the opportunity to practice self compassion as opposed to gritting my teeth and forcing myself through a whole lot of discomfort in order to satisfy my ego and other's expectations of what constitutes a good, chaste and worthwhile existence? That doesn't seem mentally or physically healthy or conducive to showing loving kindness and compassion to others. I'm a firm believer that in order to be able to show compassion for others, I need to show it to myself. I'm mainly thinking about food here. Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon? At least until my stomach had shrunk to such a degree that hunger pains were perhaps more a nuisance than anything else? I think I understand the reluctance on the part of many monastics to allow things like eating after noon, etc. It so happens also, that I suspect that their concern is misplaced. It seems to me that there aren't many things in life that don't consist of shades of grey. It also seems that Buddhist monastics in general tend to lose sight of the nuance making up many of these things. So, is there a tradition I should be focusing on? A teacher? (Ajahn Brahm is a favorite btw.) Am I way off base with my concerns? If so, how should I go about rectifying my inconsistent views? If not, then what?

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?

I am currently reading *The Art of Communication* by Thich Nhat Hanh and going through some rough spots in a relationship. From a Buddhist perspective, what is the most loving way to communicate, in a relationship when both people are suffering and have opposite needs? One believes they need space to heal and find themselves, and the other needs understanding that comes through meaningful communication before that time apart will seem restorative.

I am curious about how to think about the *four immeasurable minds* in a practical way, please help me make sense of them (see detailed question below) ### Background In the book *Teachings on Love* by Thich Nhat Hanh he translates *Mudita* as Joy rather than *Sympathetic Joy* and explains that while other commentators have translated as *Sympathetic Joy* he prefers *Joy* because "Joy is for everyone" This got me thinking that it may be practical to see two sides of the immeasurables (another example would be self-compassion) ### My thinking so far Below is how i like to think of the four immeasurables Metta: * Self-love * Loving kindness towards others Karuna: * Self-compassion * Compassion for others Mudita: * Joy * Sympathetic joy Upeksha: * Peace/Equanimity * Non-discrimination - between self and others, between good and bad This way of thinking about them splits each of the first (*metta*, *karuna*, *mudita*) three into two parts, one for one-self and one for everyone else In Buddhism we don't want to make a harsh distinction between self and others but from a practical point of view this can (for example) help us to remember to have self-compassion. One downside is that there is a larger risk of not seeing our suffering as the suffering of others and the suffering of others as our own The last (upeksha) i have divided into two parts where the first is inner peace for oneself and the other is non-discrimination ### Question Is this (above) a practical way to think about the four immeasurables? (Practical in the sense of getting closer to living in line with them). **Are there other ways to think about them that you can recommend and that can help us achieve living with them on a daily basis?** (Please provide references to books or other materials if you can) Grateful for help and with kind regards, Tord

I find it very difficult to practice metta because i can't find anyone who has been a benefactor.I don't know a lot of people.Most people i know i find it very difficult to send metta to as a benefactor as their either very dear to me or downright hostile.Can i just imagine a benefactor i never had .Or use a dead person, as my auntie was very kind to me but she's deceased now. How can i practice metta without a benefactor? How can i find a benefactor to practice metta to?

I'm wondering what these terms, *mettā* and *karuṇā* (loving-kindness and compassion), mean. - Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from? - Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing? The words in the [metta chant](http://www.buddhanet.net/chant-metta.htm) are translated into English as being "free" from various forms of suffering. I think the Pali is just saying things like, "May I be with no-emnity" etc. Given [these definitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara#Exegesis) , is "free from suffering" more a type of karuna rather than a type of metta, if so why is it in the "chant of metta"? Are they simply exact opposites, therefore the same thing? - In a translated phrase like "[May you be well](http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/celebrations/may_you_be_filled_with.html) " or "[May all beings be at ease](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html) ", is that always the word [Sukha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha) being translated? Or are there other adjectives (states of being) that are wished for? - How is metta (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity? [These Dhamma Lists](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) warn that "indifference" is the "near enemy" of "equanimity"; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with metta? > 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 - How is metta compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't metta imply that there *are* people and that they *can* be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite? - Do you agree with the following statement, [copied from here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7275/254) : > People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita). In summary, is metta necessarily a wish that other beings be enlightened, or could it mean something other than that?

I came across many lectures from Ram Dass/Richard Alpert in the beginning of my meditation practice about a month ago, and I found the attitudes toward life and other people he espoused very liberating and were a good complement to the attention-focusing practice of samatha. I haven't found any good resources in the Buddhist school for something similar to Bhakti yoga a la Ram Dass. Moreover, even in Bhakti yoga, I haven't found and specific meditative practices to help bring about that very open, loving state of mind that listening to the lectures inspired. Any recommendations for Buddhist resources similar to what Ram Dass put out? I just feel more comfortable in the Buddhist framework. Also, any specific meditations for generating that feeling?

I think somebody asked a similar question earlier and understand that this will likely be closed but hope not. Was wondering can practicing of Metta make you likeable? Or rather more approachable? Easy to talk to? This is a very strange world, there are some people who possess some kind of unexplainable magnetism, it's like people are generally attracted to them and people pay attention when they talk. They have never been out of the limelight. Is it something to do with Metta?

Can Metta be practiced in a partnership or as a team? I can think of - two people practicing Metta together, or - a group which meets for meditation, or - across borders, across continents people meditate together at a certain time. Are there any indications of a Sutta? Are there practices of a tradition?

I have some questions about metta meditation. 1- When I send love to myself, my cat, the world etc. Do I have to feel something? Do I have to sit and repeat the mantra May I Be Happy until I feel love for myself and not move on to my cat until I've reached that point? (If yes, what if that takes forever? If I don't feel a thing, why might that be? Do I move on anyway? How much time should I spend on each thing?) 2- When I imagine myself, my cat, my neighbour and so forth, how much energy should I put into visualizing these things? Do I need to see it all clearly or is it enough to keep them in mind?