SuttaCentral
We know that karuna and upekkha are two of the Four Divine Abodes.
Presumably the diligent student practices them all to the fullest; but compassion and equanimity – don’t they cancel each other out? Isn’t it true that one needs to care deeply in order to have compassion? What of equanimity in that situation?
Caring deeply about something doesn’t at all entail being emotionally agitated about it. The usual English translation “compassion” is really not helpful here.
You might want to look up the difference between tanha (craving, always bad) and chanda (“desire” or motivation, can be wholesome). PA Payutto’s chapter on Desire here in Buddhadhamma should help you sort these out, especially the section "Wholesome desire in relation to others”.
Metta is the base. Metta meeting suffering beings becomes compassion, metta meeting happy beings becomes mudita.
Compassion makes us help others relieving their suffering, if we cannot help, equanimity comes in.
Compassion is not just having the emotions, it’s not empathy and then don’t do anything. Sometimes compassion is empathy as just acknowledging other’s feelings and needs is good enough to help them remove their sufferings.
Compassion is actively helping others. Just having compassion for animals, but not going vegan, means one is not yet fully having compassion for animals, it can be further developed.
In cases where one cannot help, there’s no sense to be stuck there, watching news of genocide and be sad all the time. Especially dangerous is the notion of as long as there’s one sad person on earth, how can we be happy. Nonsense self torturing view.
Equanimity is the one to be applied. Just reflecting that it’s kamma. Equanimity is not indifference because one had already applied compassion before. It’s not disentangled from feelings, but to feel and not react with greed, aversion, or delusion.
Wisdom tells us the range of our capabilities to help. A level 1 mage cannot help a level 50 warrior defeat a level 60 monster. One has to know one’s limit, skills, strengths and so on.
Compassion means care in action. Metta means Love in action. Equanimity means fairness in action. Joy is happiness derived from action.
This is a way to become unentangled from karma, but Enlightenment comes from something Higher than practicing the Brahmaviharas, however, the Brahmaviharas can make you a good ascetic.
The Noble Eightfold Path brings serenity in Nibbana. The Brahmaviharas can ultimately help you become Brahma, but Brahma, though God, needs Peace too.
"Mettā-vihāra is observed as kullaka-vihāra, a ‘family-meditative state’, whereas suññatā-vihāra is considered as mahāpurisa-vihāra, the ‘meditative state of great men’ "(Vinaya (PTS) II 304). (see p. 104, note 40, in Choong Mun-keat, “A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese Saṃyutta/Saṃyukta discourses on the housemaster Citta/Citra, a respected layman dhamma/dharma-teacher”, The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies , vol. no. 23 (2023), pp. 93-123).
I do like Brahmas very much. This is because one of Brahmas, his name Sahampati, asked the Buddha to teach his Dhamma to the world when he first discovered it. The Buddha in the beginning was not really sure whether his Dhamma would be understood and respected by human beings. The Buddha, nevertheless, accepted the Brahma’s invitation to teach his Dhamma to the world, out of compassion. The Brahma was also a protector (dharmapala ‘a protector of teachings’) of the Buddha and his followers. Very good! I hope the Brahma continues to be a protector of the Buddha, his Dhamma, and his followers.
“What you’re looking for is the Four Ways to become Brahma, which are Compassion, Joy, Equanimity, and Love. These are metaphors for his ships.”
I just want to point out to people new to Buddhism that this is not a Buddhist view.
Buddhahood is basically the hardest attainment to get.
To become Brahma, one just have to die after attaining the Jhānas. Jhānas are just a stepping stones to arahanthood.
Grounded on compassion, one does not hurt nor intend to hurt other beings. This can be done with equanimity.
But is there a sutta that supports this claim?
If we take the four Brahmaviharas practice - the sutta mention that it is a path to company with Brahma. It does not state that one becomes a Brahma.
“And what is a path to company with Brahma?
Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth.
… compassion … rejoicing … equanimity
This is a path to company with Brahma.
“There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in the Divinity’s host through the first absorption.”
DN15 links Jhānās and Āyatanas to Brahma realms.
Once again you’ve mentioned Divinity’s host - brahmakāyikā - which means according to dictionary belonging to Brahma’s assembly. Does belonging to the assembly imply one is Brahma? That is not stated.
If you keep reading, the class of devas explained are a class of Brahma Devas (for example, Subhakinha Devas)
So yes, Brahma’s Retenue implies birth in Brahma realms (as Brahmas). This is the traditional view afaik.
The first part of the sentence is what the suttas state, but “(as Brahmas)” is an assumption and it is not stated in that particular sutta.
For example, I could ask you: if a woman cultivated four Brahmaviharas: could she too reach the company of Brahma as woman?
Or for example AN3.70, mentions the term: devas of Brahma’s retinue
There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the devas, thus: ‘There are the Devas of the Four Great Kings, the Devas of the Thirty-three, the Yama Devas, the Contented Devas, the devas who delight in creation, the devas who have power over the creations of others, the devas of Brahma’s retinue, the devas beyond them.
MN49 explains again Subhakinhanas under brahmas. Devas born in Brahma realms are called Brahmas. I think Vibhanga / Culanidessa and Abhidhamma get into specifics of it - Buddha wasn’t really concerned with supplying a thorough map, and on more than one occasion asks people to stop asking rebirth in brahma realms, etc. Tradition regards these as brahmas.
As for a woman practising brahmavihara meditations, again, it would depend on the specific technical definitions of the teacher / tradition. Brahmavihara samadhis should probably count for rebirth as Brahmas. AFAIK there are no female brahmas though, they’re genderless.
Traditionally, this is read as Brahmas in commentaries and such.
Based on what sutta does it mean that? Or is that an assumption? I do not understand how “nor other mention” is supposed to prove the statement or disprove the reference of devas of Brahma’s retinue.
IN AN1.283 there is the mention of role of Sakka, Māra, or the Brahma. Would you consider other retinues: eg. Retinue of Sakka to be all Sakka, retinue of Mara to be all Mara too?
On Earth, we too might have a role of a King and King’s retinue, but we do not say that everyone in King’s retinue is a King too.
I’d urge you to consider that kāyika doesn’t mean what you think it does. It could be as “Belonging to Brahma Class” or “Brahma Hosts” or something like that.
kāyika elsewhere literally means “bodily, physical”. So “Divine Physical” (metaphorically) or “Brahma Bodied” is a way to read it as well. But kaya meaning planes in other places, it’s perhaps “Brahma Realm”.
Probably V. @sujato would be a better help in analysing the compound.
I have not found Sakkakāyika term in suttas, but the term “mārakāyikā devatā” is found in the suttas. Eg.: Kv2.1
Well, as you mentioned someone skilled in Pali could explain the term better.