Kp 9, Snp 1.8: a new reading of the Mettasutta [from Sujato] that will change everything [for the worse]

I respond to a few quotes from Sujato's article:

Sujato:
The Mettasutta urges us to spread love to all beings, including those who are “born or to be born”

Frankk: Actually, the metta sutta urges us to spread 'metta', not 'love'. 

You admit elsewhere that:
And it is true that Pali distinguishes sensual love (kāma, pema, etc.) from spiritual love (mettā), much like the Greek eros and agape.

Yet, you fail to consider the spectrum of overlap between spirtual and sexual love, as well as the entangling attachment that mothers have for their only son, which is neither sexual yet too clingy and attached to be considered spiritual.

So where the Buddha's instruction to spread 'metta' is unambiguous in containing no possibility of sexual love, no sensual love (of 5 sensual pleasures),  no clingy familial love and attachment, you have somehow determined it's okay to use 'love', since you claim the ambiguity you introduce can be disambiguated easily by context.

Sujato:

I once asked a Catholic contemplative monk about this. His native language was Italian. He said there is no equivalent distinction in modern Italian; they just use amore in both cases and let the context make the meaning clear. I adopted the same approach, and it seems to work fine.

Frank:
So Sujato's justification is, since an Italian Cathlolic used amore ("love") ambiguously for Catholic religion, someone introducing that same kind of ambiguity works great for Buddhist India, and the modern English speaking world? 

In Catholicism, maybe the spectrum of overlap between sexual/sensual/spirtual love does not cause a problem in their ultimate goal, union with God. But clearly an ordained Buddhist Monk should realize the spectrum of attached 'love' (outside of Sujato's coarse two antithetical categories of 'eros' and 'agape'), would prevent the Buddhist goal of nirvana. 

Sujato also assumes the Italian Catholic using 'amore/love' ambiguously is not a problem in Catholicism. I doubt the other Catholic countries would agree people can easily distinguish and recognize context between sensual ('eros') and spiritual ('agape') love. 

Basically, this is just a weak rationalization for Sujato to introduce ambiguity of 'love' into Buddhist 'metta'. 

Sujato:

... I adopted the same approach [using 'love' ambiguously], and it seems to work fine.

Frank:

Translating 'metta' as 'love' absolutely does not work fine. First you build a straw man using 'loving-kindness' as the only widely accepted translation of 'metta'. Then you post your essay in your sheltered forum of sycophants, adoring followers, and forum moderators who ban and censor users and posts which raise polite and reasonable opposition to your untenable ideas. 

Of course things 'seem to work fine' when you're in a group think echo chamber. 

Sujato:
I suspect that the real reason for the rendering of “loving-kindness” is that we can be uncomfortable around expressing emotions. “Loving-kindness” is a more distancing word; it’s emotionally cooler than “love”. I prefer the more direct, ordinary language expression.

Frank:

Your job as a translator, and as an ordained Buddhist monk, is not to translate "how you prefer", but to translate, as objectively and honestly as possible, how you think the Buddha intended. 

Translation of course has shades of grey and room for disagreement, but here it's cut and dried where you admit the Buddha's metta is unambiguous (all 'agape', no 'eros'), yet you introduce dangerous ambiguity.

It's dangerous because it then becomes completely unclear how one is to practice 'metta', according to your translation of the metta sutta (Kp 9): 

Even as a mother would protect with her lifeMātā yathā niyaṁ puttamher child, her only child,Āyusā ekaputtamanurakkhe;so too for all creaturesEvampi sabbabhūtesu,unfold a boundless heart.Mānasaṁ bhāvaye aparimāṇaṁ.

With "love" for the whole world,Mettañca sabbalokasmi,unfold a boundless heart.Mānasaṁ bhāvaye aparimāṇaṁ;Above, below, all round,Uddhaṁ adho ca tiriyañca,unconstricted, without enemy or foe.Asambādhaṁ averamasapattaṁ.

Frankk:

How that instruction reads, is one should regard all humans, all animals, all beings in the universe as a mother loves her only child. (even if we assume Sujato has a correct translation and interpretation of that mother/child metaphor, using 'love' in that passage slants the interpretation of that metaphor in that way. Someone on Sujato's essay thread asked about that very issue soon after he posted, which he then deflected instead of just giving a short straight answer). 

Thanissaro's translation of the same passage, gives a very different impression of how 'metta' ('good will') is spread to the world:

As a mother would risk her life

to protect her child, her only child,

even so should one cultivate the heart limitlessly

with regard to all beings.1

With goodwill for the entire cosmos,

cultivate the heart limitlessly:

above, below, & all around,

unobstructed, without hostility or hate.

One of the hallmarks of the Dhamma, is that it's eminently useful. It's pragmatic, it's practical, it's timely and it works. How can you possibly spread Sujato's "love" to the world? It's hard enough to keep track of just one dear son, now you have to be a mother to the bazillion number of beings in the universe? How do you have the time, energy, and capability to do that?

Whereas having 'good will' (metta), an intention to do no harm, can be spread to all the beings in the world simultneously, and beings will pick it up just as easily as people are affected by a warm smile or an angry frown. 

Think of the simile of the saw. If bandits were to saw off your limbs, according to Sujato, you should 'love' them and protect them as if they're your only dear child. 

Is that practical or even useful?

Or would spreading metta (of good will, friendliness, benevolence) sound more do-able? 

Firmly staying with an intention to do no harm to any living being (which creates endless blood feuds and endless rounds of rebirth)?

That seems do-able, yes?

And that makes much more sense regarding the metaphor of a mother fiercely protecting her only child, guarding that state of mind that does no harm and creates no evil karmic consequences.

Spread "metta" to the world without limit,  not Sujato's "love".  

-Frankk

The appeal to popularity fallacy

The appeal to popularity fallacy is made when an argument relies on public opinion to determine what is true, right, or good. This approach is problematic because popularity does not necessarily indicate something is true. Using this flaw in logic, a person may come to a conclusion that has little or no basis in fact.

frankk:

Sujato uses this fallacy as the main basis to justifiy his translation of metta = 'love'. 

"loving-kindness is the widely accepted translation".

Nothing wrong with pointing out what is popularly accepted, but to use that as the primary basis  for interpretation, while deliberately avoiding the many valid criticisms by many prominent Buddhist leaders over a long period of time of metta as 'love', is unacceptable.

If you want to support your case responsibly and convincingly, you have to to defend it against the strongest and most compelling objections. 

When you deliberately ignore those, and just appeal to popularity (of yourself and of your opinion), that is disingenuous and cowardly. 

(remainder of article is a snapshot of Sujato's essay on 11/1/2022 explaining, among other things, why he translates 'metta' as 'love'. I highlight in yellow some of the more problematic points)

a new reading of the Mettasutta that will change everything

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a-new-reading-of-the-mettasutta-that-will-change-everything/26828/3

sujato Bhante


This is part of a series of posts where I am posting drafts of various discussions in my Introduction to the Suttanipāta.

Shifting to a positive mood, we next find the famous Mettasutta (“The Discourse on Love” [snp1.8]). Rather than a series of verses on a theme, this is a coherent poem divided roughly into three sections: verses 1–3ab lay the foundation for virtuous conduct; 4cd–6 describe the meditation on love; while verses 7–9 depict the exultant state of liberation that results. Verse 10 is in a different metre and appears to be a later addition, describing in a highly compressed form the development of insight for attaining first stream-entry, then non-return.

I now translate mettā as “love” rather than the Buddhist neologism “loving-kindness”. The latter has become widely accepted, and is justified by arguing that “love” has too much of a sensual connotation. And it is true that Pali distinguishes sensual love (kāma, pema, etc.) from spiritual love (mettā), much like the Greek eros and agape. I once asked a Catholic contemplative monk about this. His native language was Italian. He said there is no equivalent distinction in modern Italian; they just use amore in both cases and let the context make the meaning clear. I adopted the same approach, and it seems to work fine.

I suspect that the real reason for the rendering of “loving-kindness” is that we can be uncomfortable around expressing emotions. “Loving-kindness” is a more distancing word; it’s emotionally cooler than “love”. I prefer the more direct, ordinary language expression.

The opening lines pose something of an interpretive problem, evidenced by the complex discussion in the commentary. The second line refers to someone who has realized the “peaceful state” of Nibbāna (santaṁ padaṁ). The term for “realized” (abhisamecca) is usually reserved for the breakthrough to the four noble truths, eg. [sn56.4:1.1]). Such a person must then be a stream-enterer at least ([sn56.49:1.7], see also āgataphalā abhisametāvinī viññātasāsanā at [pli-tv-bu-vb-ay1:2.1.26]). Is the poem then restricted to the practice for a stream-enterer? Given the universal nature of its themes, this seems unlikely.

Jayawickrama suggests that “the peaceful state” need not mean Nibbāna, but this does not seem to be supported in early Pali. Bodhi addresses this issue in his note 685, where he confirms that a stream-enterer is meant, rejecting the commentary’s alternative explanations. This is clearly the most straightforward reading of the lines.

There remains, however, the problem of how this fits with the remainder of the text. The stream-enterer is “perfected in ethics”. Yet the subject of the Mettasutta is exhorted to have moral integrity, to be admonishable, to not be overly demanding of donor families, and to not act in a blameworthy way, all of which are things that would surely come naturally to a stream-enterer. Further, as we shall see below, the original poem merely taught as far as rebirth in the Brahmā realm, and it is unlikely that the Buddha should teach this to a stream-enterer. Overall, the poem has a high degree of unity and purpose, and this all feels ill-fitting.

Revisiting the commentary, it offers several different approaches. Among them, it suggests the absolutive may be read in an infinitive sense. That is, instead of “what has been realized”, what it means is “in order to realize” (abhisamecca viharitukāmo). While the primary gloss on abhisamecca confirms that it is an absolutive (abhisameccāti abhisamāgantvā), it also explains it in terms of an infinitive (adhigantukāmena). Further, it speaks of a mendicant who “is practicing to attain that state” (tadadhigamāya paṭipajjamāno).

If we are to adopt this reading, we are left with a further puzzle in the term atthakusala. The word attha means many things, but here it is interpreted by the commentary as what is good or beneficial, and this is followed by most or all modern interpreters. It does, however, create a similar problem to that discussed in the previous paragraph, because it is generally considered that only a stream-enterer is accomplished in ethics. Those who have not seen the four noble truths can, of course, live a good life, but they are not yet “experts”. The commentary appears to be aware of this problem, as it offers an infinitive reading for atthakusala, that is, “one who wishes to dwell in the fourfold ethical purity” (catupārisuddhisīle patiṭṭhātukāmo).

However, such a reading is not necessary here, for atthakusala occurs in the Suttas, where it refers to expertise in the scriptures ([an5.169:3.1]):


a mendicant is skilled in the meaning (atthakusala), skilled in the teaching, skilled in terminology, skilled in phrasing, and skilled in sequence.

Now we have a much more satisfying reading to the opening lines. They are addressed to someone who has already mastered the textual teachings and wishes to realize them in practice. This follows exactly the same pattern as practiced by the bodhisatta under his former teachers, where he first learned the scriptures, then undertook meditation. It is also the fundamental framework for monastic practice, the Gradual Training, where the mendicant learns the Dhamma then goes off to meditate.

I therefore translate the opening lines:


Those who are skilled in the meaning of scripture
should practice like this so as to realize the state of peace.

This also allows us to situate the opening of the Mettasutta more precisely with the added final verse, which begins with the words “avoiding views”. This is a major theme of the Suttanipāta, especially the Aṭṭhakavagga, which formed one of the kernels around which the Suttanipāta formed. The redactors who added this verse must have known the Aṭṭhakavagga, with its oft-repeated admonishment to avoid the trap of heated and angry debating on views. It is quite possible, likely even, that this verse was added when the Mettasutta was included in the Suttanipāta, creating a connection with the themes of the Aṭṭhakavagga, offering a meditation path especially suited to those with a tendency to become heated in their arguments.

The Mettasutta urges us to spread love to all beings, including those who are “born or to be born” (bhūtā vā sambhavesī vā). The latter phrase, which occurs only here and in a stock phrase at eg. [sn12.11:1.3], evidently refers to beings who are in the process of taking a new life, an idea that is evidently at odds with the early Theravadin insistence that one life follows immediately after another, with no “in-between state” ([kv8.2]). A majority of early Buddhist schools accepted this state, and this phrase in the Mettasutta joins a list of other contexts in the early texts that show with reasonable certainty that the early Buddhists did too.

This doctrinal point speaks to the earliness of the poem, as does the metre (old Ārya), the coherent flow of ideas, and the focus on the universal subject of mettā without a forced “Buddhistic” perspective, the lack of which evidently prompted the later addition of the final verse.

It is assumed in the Buddhist tradition that mettā and the other brahmavihāras (karuṇā or compassion, muditā or rejoicing, and upekkhā or equanimity) are pre-Buddhistic, and belong with the very many ideas that the Buddha happily adopted from his religious surroundings. While they are not, to my knowledge, attested in any surviving pre-Buddhist texts, they are found in the Yogasūtra (1.33), several later Upaniṣads, the Jain Tattvarthasūtra (7.11), and even a Tibetan Bon text of the eleventh century, “A Cavern of Treasures” (mDzod-phug).

If we look at the way the word brahmavihāra is used in the suttas, we find that apart from the Mettasutta, there is one other verse where the term particularly refers to the practice of mettā ([thag14.1:5.3]). The term is sometimes used for mindfulness of breathing, along with ariyavihāra and tathāgatavihāra, in which case the term brahmā must refer to the being of that name, rather than an abstract sense such as “divine” or “holy” ([sn54.11:3.2], [sn54.12:8.4]).

While the group of four qualities are commonly taught, they are referred to as brahmavihāras specifically to indicate that such a practice leads to rebirth in the Brahmā realm ([mn83:6.2], [an5.192:6.8], [dn17:2.13.8]). Elsewhere the Buddha clarifies that such practices, which he did in his past life, do not lead to Nibbāna, unlike his own eightfold path ([dn19:61.4]). When someone who is a Buddhist disciple practices them, then if they do not realize full enlightenment in this life, they will do so after being reborn in the Brahmā realm ([an4.125], [an4.126])

This lends a greater specificity to the line “this is a meditation of Brahmā in this life”, which would have been the final line of the original poem. The sense is that through this meditation, one can live like the god Brahmā in this life; and such a life leads to being reborn as a Brahmā in the next. While it is unusual to find a Buddhist text that ends with such a rebirth, it is not unique. In the Tevijjasutta the Buddha teaches this path to some brahmin questioners ([dn13]). Sāriputta did the same in [mn97], although the Buddha evidently felt he should have gone further. What is unusual, however, is that such suttas are taught to those who were not committed Buddhists, while the introductory passages of the Mettasutta evidently address Buddhist mendicants.

As with other didactic texts of the early period, the poem is noteworthy for its plain style and lack of metaphors. But this restraint shows no lack on behalf of the poet, for when the metaphor of a mother’s love for her child is introduced, it comes at the climax of the poem. The restraint creates a heightened emotion here, which is one of the secrets behind this poem’s enduring popularity.

(end of Sujato article)


created
2d

last reply
23h
18
replies
349
views
8
users
55
likes
2
links
5
4
3


Khemarato.bhikkhu
2d





creating a connection with the themes of the Aṭṭhakavagga, offering a meditation path especially suited to those with a tendency to become heated in their arguments.

Nice!

It’s funny because I’ve often thought of the opening “knows the path” (in the old, chanting translation)
as referring to those with doctrinal knowledge. Glad there’s some justification for my “mis” reading!


kaccayanagotta
2d



I’m curious of your opinion on the line about the mother protecting her child, bhante.

This is often equated to someone loving and protecting all beings via mettā as a mother would to her child. However, it seems, as some have pointed out, that perhaps this is saying that one protects their mind of mettā in the same way a mother protects her only child, not the beings themselves. Of course, the mettā would entail feelings of kindness and friendliness / well-being to all beings, but one would not be treating them as a mother does. On the other hand, that very mind of mettā must be protected at all costs, always maintained and practiced.

Thoughts?
Mettā


sujatoBhante
2d



I believe we’ve discussed this before on the forum? Try searching and see if it turns up.