Over the years, I’ve lost friends and family connections, and I often find that people distance themselves from me for reasons I can’t understand. I try to build friendships, but others rarely accept my invitations or respond. Even those I’m on good terms with tend to keep their distance. I've stopped inviting people out to do things because of so much rejection. Even when they do accept, I can't seem to make connection with them. Sometimes, people that I know for long start turning against me, as in they actually become like enemies. Meanwhile I don't recall doing anything bad to them intentionally. This repeated pattern makes me feel that the world is against me, and since human connection is such a large part of life, I feel doomed. I’ve reflected deeply but haven’t found clarity. How can one overcome such a state? I'd like concrete things that I can do to measurably improve in this. (I know of metta, but I doubt it is much helpful in my case?). Thanks!

Making emotional connection to others is an instrinsic part of reality, since people are nothing but nature in a complex form, and buddhism teaches how to prepare oneself for dealing with all aspects of nature. This is somewhat ignored in traditional buddhism, swept under the rug using the advice to develop loving kindness. While that advice might be true, it is in general quite broad and not specific enough for many people, including myself as a man with Asperger's. I am looking for more concrete and practical advice which is still quite fundamental and applicable in general. Can you please give your insights on developing emotional connection with others - what traits within oneself need to be developed/strengthened to get good at it? Thanks!

I come from a Theravada background because I like how seriously they (forest tradition) take the Vinaya, and their pragmatic approach to the teachings. But in my opinion Theravada doesn't understand love. Many suttas speak of the benefits of ethics as it pertains to concentration. Other suttas speak of "looking after others to look after yourself". Other suttas speak of the kammic benefits of making merit. The logic is simple: do good and you will be rewarded. But that is not caring for another, it is not metta or love or what have you. It is child logic, like how you might motivate a child to clean their room or look after their sibling. Truly caring for another is looking after their welfare, for the sake of their welfare. Your motivation is seeing their benefit. Your joy is in seeing their benefit. This relates to another point. Love is a taboo word. But love doesn't just mean erotic or overly attached love. Love can be of a universal kind. Love can mean to expand your circle of concern for others. Truly and deeply you feel sympathetic joy, compassion, and kindness for them. What motivates love is not self gain, my own narrow sense of merit or pride or a negative sense of moral shame. What motivates love is caring about another being. Personally, I think love is the truth at the heart of the way. Otherwise, why did the Buddha teach? Why not live in bliss and ignore the rest of the world? But he didn't do that, and he didn't do it to make merit. He did it 100% for the sake of the benefit of sentient beings, motivated by their benefit. At least, I hope so. Is there a tradition in which this selfless conception of love is found and celebrated?

When we say the phrase may I be healthy may I be free from suffering? Isn’t that kind of not accepting where we are if we are suffering or in pain or not healthy? Can someone help me understand what we’re trying to achieve by saying that?

I'm interested in learning more about Metta Meditation, and wondering if there are different approaches to this style of meditation. I understand that the history of this practice is quite long, and it would be difficult to be comprehensive, but for the sake of brevity an answer could include only broad differences in approach. Or is there generally only one style of practice?

Buddha said that we should train ourselves in *metta* in the following way: "Thus you should train yourselves: 'Our awareness-release through good-will will be cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken. That's how you should train yourselves." -- Satti Sutta How do monks cultivate *metta*? Is it by some kind of remembrance, recitation or something else?

>"I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian traditions, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue, I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in the Creation and a Divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditions has no place within that worldview. So, in the realm of metaphysics, it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge (81-82).". *By The Christian Research Institute* - **If and when the two traditions don't diverge, is that necessarily problematic to Buddhism also?** - **If and when the two traditions don't diverge, is that necessarily problematic for all people?** - **Are Christian concepts pointing at the same things that Buddhism is pointing at but with different approaches?** - **How well does the Christian Research Institute understand Buddhism?**

Is "[Racial color blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_color_blindness) " covered in the Buddha's teaching? What would be the closest Buddhist concept that covers it? Is there a scripture that teaches colorblindness? Could it have originated from the Buddha's teaching, Christianity, both or somewhere else? Does anyone know what Thích Nhất Hạnh taught MLK about colorblindness?

Would a civilization based on the teachings of Buddha ever had a need for military force? It is said in Metta Sutta that one who practices *metta* is free from dangers of fire, poison and weapons. Is the practice of *metta* enough to protect the citizens from any aggression?

MN 122 says: > Ananda, there is this abiding discovered by the Tathagata: to enter > and abide in voidness internally by giving no attention to all signs. > If, while the Tathagata is abiding thus, he is visited by bhikkhus or > bhikkhunis, by men or women lay followers, by kings or kings' > ministers, by other sectarians or their disciples, then with a mind > leaning to seclusion, tending and inclining to seclusion, withdrawn, > delighting in renunciation, and altogether done with things that are > the basis for taints, he invariably talks to them **in a way concerned > with dismissing them.** Was the Buddha unsociable? If not, what is the meaning of the above verse?

Quote from Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125 Paṭhamamettāsutta: > Firstly, a person meditates spreading a heart full of love > [...] > > If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of Brahmā’s Host. > The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon. **An ordinary person stays there** until the lifespan of those gods is spent, **then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm**. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between an educated noble disciple and an uneducated ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth. Why would an ordinary person, a worlding (puthujjano), go to hell after a lot of metta? I cannot believe this. My first guess was that this is probably meant to be a possibility, meaning lots of metta will not 100% prevent descending to lower realms forever. However, as I cannot read Pali, I compared other translations to modern languages, but none of them suggests the possibility. Instead they all seem to agree (at least by their grammar) on this direct chain of results: (a lot of) Metta -> gods realm -> one of the lower realms for a householder, at least. Disciples are better off. Grammatically, I fail to see any room left for interpretation as a possibility. I must be misunderstanding something with this sutta. What is it? Wording, context, translatation, missing background? --- Thanks for the answers so far. I understand your interpretation and I sympathize with it. But it seems I missed some explanation. Please let me try to clarify my question: A puthujjano is one who has not overcome the ten fetters. If, with a lot of metta, such a person is reborn as deva in Brahma realm, then - according to my understanding of the words of this sutte - this person **will** be reborn to the lower realms. The text doesn't say the worldling "can go", or "could go", or "will go, if something else". The sutta, literally, states: "metta .. worldling ... brahma realm ... then hell". This is against my intuition, which is that a worldling, after lots of metta, can be reborn as deva but still end up in a lower realm later for some reasons, e.g. if only concentration is highly developed, or for other karmic reasons. But the sutta does not suggest this result as possibility, only, but as direct result. I would assume that the next rebirth could be elsewhere, too, if karma it favorable, if mindfulness, equanimity, whatever needed, have been developed. But the sutta does not mention any other factor, except: worldling (will go to hell) or disciple (will go to cessation). My question is about the words of this sutta. Why do they go against this intuition. Blind guesses: Is it a translation error? Is Pali lacking forms like subjunctive, so pure possibility can't be expressed? Is this sutta a later addition to the canon? Did I miss context?

Deep down, I know there is a core that wants to love everyone for who they are. No matter who they are to me, the world, no matter how terrible of a person they are, no matter how much they make me jealous. The only problem is, the stuff in the middle. I feel like I cannot move past things due to unclean closures to relationships and overall jealousy. I really want to wish everyone the best, but my intentions are tainted by negative emotions. How do we break through this terrible barrier that stops us from loving ourself and everyone else, and how do we unconditionally love everyone?

I have been continuing my meditation practice, and I feel there would be a great benefit from switching to a metta practice instead of breath. Yet, with metta, a strange phenomenon occurs. I am usually very good *during* metta bhavana and generate the feelings. However, it is incredibly hard for me to begin the metta session, and I seem to avoid this type of meditation before and afterwards. Only during the practice do I feel great emotion and compassion. How can this be explained? Thank you.

Please help with these questions! :) > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is angry? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is deluded? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is greedy? > > And what is the most skillful way to handle the Poisons within me as > well? Metta to all!

Is it OK to use zazen for the purposes one would use metta meditation? Because I don't want to do any meditation except zazen.

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

Today I suffered severe disappointment because I thought I was cheated some amount of money. I couldn't complain to anyone because I had no proof. And I suspect those who cheated me will also cheat other people. I want to avoid such disappointments in future and also I want to do the right thing. What should be my response on getting cheated ? Should I forgive the thugs who stole my money ? Should I wish bad for them and report it to the police or the managers?

Here are my questions: > Can lying be nonverbal? like in action? > > Is cheating lying? > > Is writing the wrong answer when you know the correct answer lying? > > Is skipping the line cheating, and in a sense lying? > > If I break a promise, is that lying or in anyway kammically bad?

q: > Is not doing anything in a situation and just being mindful breaking > any of the precepts?