I know the simile, and I understand the interpretation and that it could fit in a variety of places, I just don’t understand how we get “protect your own metta” from “cherish all beings like a mother protects her child”.
I shall take the translation you have given from Dhammanando Bhikkhu, and explain another way it could be seen.
A mother’s protection is limitless, she will not stop even to sacrifice herself for her son
in a directly related way, one should cultivate [love] for all beings with no limits, exceptions [or perhaps you could even add attachments]
I just don’t see how one gets “protects” metta out of that. You would have to change ‘cultivates’ to ‘protects’
Thanks @Gabriel_L. I did watch the video, and the explanation is very excellent, however I still don’t agree. I just don’t think that meaning can be extracted from the text or examples given.
I am not at all experienced in Pali, which is why I refrained from going there, but the only meaning I can see fitting is that either the cultivation of metta should be limitless or that the cultivation of metta makes the mind limitless. I simply can’t understand how a meaning of protecting the metta comes into it. I also don’t think the original passage implores us to protect all living beings by laying down our lives for them, but that is simply an example of how limitless a mother’s love can be.
metta = the wish that a being, beings, or all beings be happy
None of the options fully reflects this. Keeping it untranslated would be the best option. If it had to be translated, the good old “loving-kindness” is best because it partly covers all the single-word definitions offered.
I am not as well skilled in Pali so I cannot confirm if this is a matter of many possible interpretations or strictly singlw grammar driven correct meaning derivation. I am curious what @Sylvester would have to say on this.
What I can say however is that it makes sense to me that the Buddha, knowing the limit of his disciples still miles away from the fruition, instructed us to protect as a mother would protect her only child the benevolent and friendly mind state that the cultivation of (metta bhavana) allows to arise.
I see the Buddha boldly recommending us a very realistic strategy and approach to the real challenge and struggle we all go through when we try carrying our metta vibes away from the meditation session into our daily activities of body, speech and mind. This is for the sort of benevolence, good will and friendliness the spiritual tool metta translate into is really hard to sustain, at least for me!
Maternal protection- we must bear in mind that in Ancient India child rearing might be different as it is from culture to culture. There is one sutta which talks about the Cow chewing cud while keeping one eye out for her calf. This the mom doing her day to day activities while also protecting her children. This is ‘love’ in its ‘seed’ or unexpressed or even un-magnified (as in Metta meditation) form.
The Magnified (or expanded) form which can be termed ‘Universal love’, which is experienced in Metta meditation.
It seems this is a word ranging from its mildest to its greatest forms. However over the centuries the work Love has gathered too much baggage to be used as a substitute. We might just leave it as Metta so that generations can explore and come to realise for themselves the breadth and depth of this one emotion.
No, me neither, so these are my rudimentary extractions…
I agree that it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion and one can draw a very sensible sounding correlation between the two. My only issues are these: no matter how great it sounds, that may not necessarily mean the Buddha said it, and secondly, I think that the idea of ‘protecting’ the mind state of meditation throughout the day assumes it’s a permanent and unchanging thing, or that it’s possible to do such a thing amongst the vicissitudes of daily life.
The idea of ‘protecting’ the metta assumes this is a solid, constant and permanent mind state that needs to be protected from downfall, rather than a temporary, conditioned state that can be cultivated and given rise to.
because its tainted 99.9999% of the time. as a meditation master said once, “too much metta makes babies.” if “metta” was translated as “good-will”, then the joke wouldn’t work, because metta would less likely to be tainted.
for the audience Bhante Sujato is translating for, perhaps “love” is suitable.
i personally have a strong distaste for the word “love” in the west because i’ve heard it spoken too often as an empty platitude. just like a politician’s promise, or a mirage. i’d rather observe carefully a person’s action over time and judge by that whether they really “love” their fellow neighbors on the planet, including the species they have power over.
That’s weird, 'cos all the great metta practitioners I know are distinctly baby-free…?
But seriously, I find that statement a bit cynical and incorrect. I’m sure metta can be misused, like any aspect of religion/sprituality such as confidence, teaching, etc as a means to an end of gratifying sexual desire, but it seems to me that the main causes of baby-making are uninhibited sexual desire and an inability to control oneself.
Obviously, separating love and sexual desire are of prime importance in terms of making love a suitable translation for metta.
Has the word ‘love’ been misused - yes, and not only in the West. But when we talk about a powerful, non-romantic, non-sexual, unbiased, unconditional love, we still call it ‘love’. It seems most of the arguments against love in this case are not regarding the suitability of the word for the definition, but centre more around fear and distaste of the word.
If you could hold the wish for pure happiness for yourself or a loved one for a moment, without any other thoughts or hatred or anger or fear and feel the warmth radiating from your heart within yourself that is a source of the most brilliant and simple joy, what would you call that?
can the ‘love’ we’re used to, be decoupled from connotations of attachment? that’s in my opinion the primary count on which its suitability should be assessed
True, and an excellent point. Maybe it’s personal, but I believe it certainly can. Love is love, the attachment is the tainting that comes from ownership, jealousy, exclusivity, selfishness, greed, lust, etc that can exist with or without ‘love’.
“joy”?
check out the lyrics for this song, and notice how “joy” is used, and how “love” is used. “joy” seems to be a better fit for metta as a brahmavihara radiated to all without condition. i understand how people like the emotional punch the word packs, but “love” just has too much baggage.
Lyrics
Jeremiah was a bullfrog
Was a good friend of mine
I never understood a single word he said
But I helped him a-drink his wine
And he always had some mighty fine wine
Singin’
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls now
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
If I were the king of the world
Tell you what I’d do
I’d throw away the cars and the bars and the war
Make sweet love to you
Sing it now
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
You know I love the ladies
Love to have my fun
I’m a high life flyer and a rainbow rider
A straight shootin’ son-of-a-gun
I said a straight shootin’ son-of-a-gun
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the world
Joy to you and me
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls now
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
I want to tell you
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
there’s this sentimental hippie ideal of “make love, not war”, and that’s great as far as that goes (from a conventional perspective), but when we dig deeper into the situation the conditionality and dependent arisen nature of deluded actions is that when you start “making love”, war is just around the corner. as the EBT suttas say, once deep attachment, lust set in, identity clinging, the need to protect acqusitions and competitition for limited desirable resources, arguments lead to taking up of weapons which leads to war. can’t have “love” without “war”. but if it’s benevolence, good will, metta, etc, then you can be free of war.
it will be interesting to see how Bhante’s translation turns out using “love” for metta. maybe the brotherly love or altruistic love will be apparent. i applaud Bhante for taking bold risks though.
@frankk I appreciate your interesting interpretation of love and war! Of course, ‘love’ and ‘making love’ as it is known in the vernacular of our times, should certainly not be correlated.
My point would be that the core meaning of love should be free from…
Whatever leads to that is not love, and love will lead to whatever is…not that.
Yes why not!
Well, we have to admit it gets attention doesn’t it.
Not at all to rain on Bhante’s bold, risky parade, as mentioned above Ayya Khema went with “love”, so it’s not a new idea by any stretch. In fairness, though, she didn’t translate 4 nikayas.
Can we just agree that “loving-kindness” is thoroughly peculiar rendering we can cheer the fading away of (I still pull a face of ‘say what now?!?’ when I hear it) and quietly use our own word of choice in our heads if we’re one of the ones “love” is insurmountably problematic for (with it might be added, very good reason).
For my own part, I’d really like to thank @Cara for your input here, because although I never really minded the word, I certainly like it a lot more listening to your descriptions of what the word points to for you. It’s really gladdened me and I think you’ve done a great job of going beyond the word and drawing out the qualities it relates to.
“As a mother might protect her own son, her only son, unstinting even of her own life, even so should he cultivate a mind [of friendliness], setting no limits with respect to any beings.”
มารดาถนอมบุตรคนเดียวผู้เกิดในตน ด้วยชีวิต ฉันใด พึงเจริญเมตตามีในใจไม่มีประมาณ ในสัตว์ทั้งปวง แม้ฉันนั้น
(Karaṇīyamettā Sutta, Sn. 149)
The English translation will probably look rather different to others you are familiar with, for I have tried to make it clear that “own son” in the simile’s vehicle should correspond to “mind” in the simile’s tenor. That is to say, it is the mettā-yogi’s thought of mettā that is to be acted upon in the manner of a mother guarding her own son. Every other English translation that I’ve seen either misleads the reader into supposing that “own son” corresponds to “all beings” or else leaves the correspondence unclear.
Edit - I’ve put the above in quotes, as I think the readers thought this was my translation, when it was Ven Dhammanando’s.
For what it’s worth, Ven. Thanissaro also agrees with the interpretation Sylvester has presented. I heard this personally from him and made a note of it at a daylong on the brahmaviharas a few years ago.
Also, I like Ven. Analayo’s assertion that metta is to be directed in all directions and isn’t limited to living beings or sentient beings. It helps me to engage more lovingly towards everything.
