by Bhikkhu Anīgha
Q: “I saw a video of Ajahn Nyanamoli talking about how the common practice of ‘spreading and sending’ metta- is basically useless, because, if I understood correctly, if your heart is truly full of metta you don’t have to spread it around, it’s instead just a friendly disposition toward all beings and phenomena. He also said that the common practice of spreading metta is often used as a “coverup” and as an escape from difficult emotions- avoiding the task at hand- and that all sounds very sensible to me.
But why do some suttas talk in this manner?
‘And what is the measureless liberation of mind? It’s when a bhikkhu dwells having pervaded with a mind imbued with friendliness the first direction, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, he dwells having pervaded the whole world with a mind imbued with friendliness—abundant, expansive, measureless, free of enmity and aversion. He dwells having pervaded with a mind imbued with compassion … He dwells having pervaded with a mind imbued with contentment … He dwells having pervaded with a mind imbued with equanimity the first direction, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, he dwells having pervaded the whole world with a mind imbued with equanimity—abundant, expansive, measureless, free of enmity and aversion.’”
Firstly, it must be noted that mettā is not and does not involve “love”. “Love” is not “mettā” but “pema”, and this needs to be “abandoned, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future.”1
Sorrow springs from love (pema),
fear springs from love;
one free from love
has no sorrow, let alone fear.
—Dhammapada 213
“Loving-kindness” would therefore also be a misleading rendering of “mettā”. Mittā (as in kalyāṇamittā) means “friend”, and this is where the term mettā derives from. Even if “love” is taken in a more refined sense, as some sort of “spiritual love”, it would still be at odds with dispassion and constitute an obstruction to total relinquishment, while genuine mettā is one of the unconditionally favorable qualities that an Arahant, who is free from any trace of liking and affinity, has perfected, not given up.2
Mettā is also not something that can be volitionally produced. The “liberation of mind through friendliness” (mettācetovimutti) described in the Suttas is the consequence of the successful purification of the mind from ill will.3 Just as abandoning the five hindrances is what naturally results in the first jhāna, so too abandoning all possibility for ill will and associated mental states leads on its own to a mind of friendliness, which can then be further refined.
“How, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu practice the way proper to the renunciate? When any bhikkhu who was covetous has abandoned covetousness, who had a mind of ill will has abandoned ill will, who was angry has abandoned anger, who was resentful has abandoned resentment, who was contemptuous has abandoned contempt, who was insolent has abandoned insolence, who was envious has abandoned envy, who was avaricious has abandoned avarice, who was fraudulent has abandoned fraud, who was deceitful has abandoned deceit, who had harmful wishes has abandoned harmful wishes, who had wrong view has abandoned wrong view, then he practices the way proper to the renunciate, I say, because of his abandoning these stains for the renunciate, these faults for the renunciate, these dregs for the renunciate, which are grounds for rebirth in a state of deprivation and whose results are to be experienced in an unhappy destination.
“He sees himself purified of all these harmful unfavorable things; he sees himself liberated from them. When he sees this, gladness is born in him. When he is glad, joy is born in him; in one who is joyous, the body becomes calm; one whose body is calm feels at ease; in one who feels at ease, the mind becomes composed.
“He dwells having pervaded with a mind imbued with friendliness the first direction, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, he dwells having pervaded the whole world with a mind of friendliness—abundant, expansive, measureless, free of enmity and aversion.
(and so on for compassion, contentment, and equanimity).
—MN 40
I have heard this, Bhante: ‘Brahmā abides in friendliness’. Regarding that, the Blessed One I see with my own eyes. The Blessed One abides in friendliness.”
“Jīvaka, any passion, any aversion, or any delusion whereby ill will might arise in him, the Tathāgata has abandoned, cut off at the roots, made like a palm-stump, done away with so that it is no longer liable to future arising. If what you said referred to that, then I allow it you.”
[…]
I have heard this, Bhante: ‘Brahmā abides in equanimity’. Regarding that, the Blessed One I see with my own eyes. The Blessed One abides in equanimity.”
“Jīvaka, any passion, any aversion, or any delusion whereby annoyance, discontent, or resistance4 might arise in him, the Tathāgata has abandoned, cut off at the roots, made like a palm-stump, done away with so that it is no longer liable to future arising. If what you said referred to that, then I allow it you.”
—MN 55
What forcing and fabricating mettā or any of the other divine abidings will always entail is concealing—successfully as one may—the problem’s symptoms instead of addressing its root.
The Buddha therefore instructs that one should practice mettā only after the mind is already not overcome by ill will. The mind first needs to be able to remain steady all by itself when encountering things that challenge it, instead of needing to use mettā or any other form of meditation as an aid to ameliorate such things.
“Venerable sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief! May the Holy One teach me the Dhamma in brief! Hopefully I can understand the meaning of what the Buddha says! Hopefully I can be an heir of the Buddha’s teaching!”
“Well then, bhikkhu, you should train like this: ‘My mind will be steady and well settled internally. And harmful, unfavorable qualities that have arisen will not overtake my mind.’ That’s how you should train.
When your mind is steady and well settled internally, and harmful, unfavorable qualities that have arisen don’t overtake your mind, then you should train like this: ‘I will develop the liberation of mind through friendliness. I’ll cultivate it, make it my vehicle and my basis, keep it up, consolidate it, and properly implement it.’ That’s how you should train.
—AN 8.63
“Bhikkhus, possessing five qualities, a bhikkhu is incapable of entering and dwelling in right composure. What five? Here, a bhikkhu cannot patiently endure forms, sounds, odors, tastes, and touches. Possessing these five qualities, a bhikkhu is incapable of entering and dwelling in right composure.
—AN 5.113
Once this indispensable foundation of mental stability is achieved5, you would be able to start recognizing how and to what extent ill will is actually a gratuitous layer the mind adds on top of displeasing feelings, and how this layer can eventually be peeled off through further restraint, discernment, and diligence.
The root of hatred is never something external like what someone did to you or who they are, nor even how those things make you feel. All of that simply acts as a trigger for the already-latent tendency to aversion, and that is what one should be addressing. Feelings are not in one’s ultimate control.
“Bhikkhus, just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but with the separation and laying aside of the sticks the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, in dependence on a contact to be experienced as pleasant…a contact to be experienced as unpleasant…a contact to be experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling arises…. With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, the corresponding feeling … ceases and subsides.
—SN 12.62
“Bhikkhus, feeling is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, feeling were self, feeling would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.’ But because feeling is nonself, feeling leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.’
—SN 22.59
So instead of trying to scramble for ways to suppress the disagreeability caused by people or events and replace it with the opposite6, which may not work at all if the circumstance is particularly challenging, what you need to do is cease to provide the fuel7 for ill will—the aversion towards the disagreeability—to remain and further increase, and leave the disagreeability itself alone. This is how you would slowly but surely wear away the core of the problem and any future liability to it.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will? There is, bhikkhus, the sign of opposition (paṭighanimitta): frequently attending to it not through the origin (ayoniso manasikāra) is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will.
—SN 46.518
Since both ill will and the internal basis for it are there simultaneously, they are indistinguishable for the ignorant mind that is used to turning pressure into unwholesome states and cannot conceive how to stay calm despite that which tries to provoke it. The natural and effortless course of action is then to try to eliminate the provocation, just now inwardly instead of by lashing out at external entities as it used to. Hence, suppression and management of challenging emotions is precisely the approach that most people will find congenial and “helpful”—it stems from the same tendency to shun unpleasant feelings, and the Middle Way remains untrodden.
A person who deals with their ill will like this is the same as someone who can only tolerate vegetables when they’re smeared with a thick dressing that masks their actual taste. To put it bluntly, it’s a form of cheating.
In the ultimate sense, the mind can only really be averse towards itself9: you can’t truly hate somebody else directly; you can only hate (or love, for that matter) how they make you feel. Consequently, managing your feelings is at best quantitatively and not qualitatively different from crudely hateful behaviors aimed at other people.
Proper abandonment of ill will requires you to endure discomfort internally10, and does not provide the immediate, easy escape from it that most people expect. It forces you to withstand the tug of your own mind attempting to sprint in the direction that it’s been habituated to. But by sticking to that patiently, you would over time begin to see for yourself that none of the disagreeability and dissonance that was felt when someone insulted you, attacked you, annoyed you, or was simply not pleasant to be with, and which you would’ve instinctively covered up by trying to “antidote” it with loving-kindness, was in any way the problem. It was an entirely separate movement in the direction of ill will, of leaning away from displeasure, that was responsible for all the suffering, and that would’ve been subdued in the right way such that it simply cannot return even if you wanted it to, much less if circumstances merely get out of hand.
“And how, bhikkhus, is there restraint? Here, having seen a form with the eye, a bhikkhu is not intent upon a pleasing form and not repelled by a displeasing form. He dwells having set up recollection of the body, with a measureless mind, and he understands as it is that liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, wherein those harmful unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having heard a sound with the ear … Having cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, he is not intent upon a pleasing mental phenomenon and not repelled by a displeasing mental phenomenon. He dwells having set up recollection of the body, with a measureless mind, and he understands as it is that liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, wherein those harmful unwholesome states cease without remainder. It is in such a way that there is restraint.
“Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would catch six animals—with different domains and different feeding grounds—and tie them by a strong rope. He would catch a snake, a crocodile, a bird, a dog, a jackal, and a monkey, and tie each by a strong rope. Having done so, he would bind them to a strong post or pillar. Then those six animals with different domains and different feeding grounds would each pull in the direction of its own feeding ground and domain. The snake would pull one way, thinking, ‘Let me enter an anthill’ … as above … The monkey would pull another way, thinking, ‘Let me enter a forest.’
“Now when these six animals become worn out and fatigued, they would stand close to that post or pillar, they would sit down there, they would lie down there. So too, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has developed and cultivated recollection related to the body, the eye does not pull in the direction of agreeable forms nor are disagreeable forms aversive; the ear does not pull in the direction of agreeable sounds nor are disagreeable sounds aversive; the nose does not pull in the direction of agreeable odours nor are disagreeable odours aversive; the tongue does not pull in the direction of agreeable tastes nor are disagreeable tastes aversive; the body does not pull in the direction of agreeable touches nor are disagreeable touches aversive; the mind does not pull in the direction of agreeable phenomena nor are disagreeable phenomena aversive.
—SN 35.247
“Boundlessness” can only be achieved if you learn how to not get bound by things that try to bind you. Otherwise, you will be bound by the task of controlling circumstances, which includes the very way your aggregates are shaped by events.
“This is called, friends, a bhikkhu who is uncorrupted amidst forms cognizable by the eye, uncorrupted amidst sounds cognizable by the ear, uncorrupted amidst odours cognizable by the nose, uncorrupted amidst tastes cognizable by the tongue, uncorrupted amidst touches cognizable by the body, uncorrupted amidst phenomena cognizable by the mind. When a bhikkhu dwells thus, if Mara approaches him through the eye, Mara fails to gain access to him, Mara fails to get a hold on him. If Mara approaches him through the ear … through the mind, Mara fails to gain access to him, Mara fails to get a hold on him.
“Suppose, friends, there is a peaked house or a hall built of thickly packed clay and freshly plastered. If a man approaches it from the east with a blazing grass torch, or from the west, from the north, from the south, from below, or from above, whichever way he approaches it the fire fails to gain access to it, the fire fails to get a hold on it. So too, friends, when a bhikkhu dwells thus, if Mara approaches him through the eye … through the mind, Mara fails to gain access to him, Mara fails to get a hold on him.
“When a bhikkhu dwells thus, he overwhelms forms; forms do not overwhelm him. He overwhelms sounds; sounds do not overwhelm him. He overwhelms odours; odours do not overwhelm him. He overwhelms tastes; tastes do not overwhelm him. He overwhelms touches; touches do not overwhelm him. He overwhelms phenomena; phenomena do not overwhelm him. This is called, friends, a bhikkhu who overwhelms forms, who overwhelms sounds, who overwhelms odours, who overwhelms tastes, who overwhelms touches, who overwhelms phenomena—one who overwhelms and who is not overwhelmed. He has overwhelmed those harmful unwholesome states that defile, that lead to renewed existence, that bring trouble, that result in suffering, and that lead to future birth, aging, and death.
“It is in this way, friends, that one is uncorrupted.”
—SN 35.24311
Having established all this, it becomes clearer what the expression “pervading the whole world with friendliness” in the Suttas is pointing at, and that it’s not the saccharine “radiating beams of loving-kindness” towards individuals that is typically practiced. Mettā and the brahmavihāras in general are not “skillful fabrications” as they would often be portrayed when people on some level realize that the states they’re cultivating are indeed artificial. That sort of effort is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the defilements are.
“Limpid, bhikkhus, is this mind, but it is blemished by adventitious defilements. The untrained worldling does not understand this as it is; therefore I say that for the uninstructed worldling there is no development of the mind.”
“Limpid, bhikkhus, is this mind, and it is freed from adventitious defilements. The trained noble disciple understands this as it is; therefore I say that for the instructed noble disciple there is development of the mind.”
—AN 1.51-5212
Since mettā is in reality the primordial attitude of the mind, it would of its own accord become established in a universal, unbiased manner as soon you manage to properly remove from every nook and cranny of your experience the adventitious aversion to displeasure that was obstructing that more fundamental, wider, and unadulterated context. Having not finished, or perhaps not even started that work of clearing out and undoing the ill will you’re responsible for, as opposed to an insufficient accumulation and fabrication of kindness and benevolence, is the sole reason why the mind is not already established in mettā—effortlessly.
By steadying and frequently abiding in this frame of mind, which you would have simply uncovered and not manufactured through wishing and appropriated intention, any possibility for the mind to value sensuality and the world would also have to disappear, and the permanent destruction of all appropriation could eventually come about. That is why the brahmavihāras were taught by the Buddha as perfectly viable vehicles to Arahantship.
- AN 4.200. See also the essay “There’s no love in loving-kindness”. ↩︎
- As shown by the Buddha’s own example, this is not something that would be necessarily observable outwardly, as his manner in the Suttas is never less than stern, and is sometimes outright brusque. In MN 81, Ven. Ānanda, his attendant, is even surprised at seeing him smile.
This does not justify all-out rudeness and harsh speech; it simply means that external displays of amiability are not the measure of mettā, and can very well originate from a place of insecurity rather than the legitimate absence of any possibility of ill will. ↩︎ - “Longer Discussion on Four Brahmavihāras” ↩︎
- It is implied here that to develop the further brahmavihāras, it’s the underlying liability to passion, aversion, and delusion that needs to be abandoned even further, so that—having already done away with ill-will and achieved mettā as a result—annoyance, discontent, and finally resistance are overcome, automatically giving way to compassion, contentment, and equanimity respectively. ↩︎
- By undertaking the precepts and the restraint of unwholesome intentions. Since sensuality and ill will go hand in hand, any actions rooted in the former will inevitably make one susceptible to the latter. Any peace meditation can bring despite those actions still being performed would stem from covering up that susceptibility. ↩︎
- By trying to convince yourself that the other is ultimately a good person, that they harmed you unintentionally, that they will one day change their ways, by repeating to yourself that you forgive them, etc. All of this simply continues to project the problem externally, ironically making you still liable to ill will. The practice is not about simply “reconditioning” the way you feel about this or that person or object, in which case the Dhamma would be little more than psychotherapy. The Dhamma is about uprooting the underlying tendencies to passion, aversion, and ignorance in regard to what you feel. ↩︎
- That “fuel” is always in the form of actions, including mental ones such as relishing the thought of retaliating against someone, or in general of doing things to relieve the displeasure. ↩︎
- i.e., the paṭighanimitta is not ill will in and of itself. ↩︎
- “Mind Self-Inflicting” ↩︎
- Which, of course, is not the same as tolerating unwholesome thoughts. ↩︎
- See also MN 21. ↩︎
- “Undefiled by the Defilements” ↩︎