Sraman 1
The Practice of Metta (Loving Kindness) as Perceptual Reconditioning
Upali Sraman
In Buddhist spiritual practice, anger (dosa) is considered to be one of the fundamental
unwholesome roots (akusalamulas) that precludes progress on the path of enlightenment.
Buddhaghosa describes the deleterious effects of anger in the Visuddhimagga, explicating,
with various narratives, the practice of metta as its antidote even in extreme situations when
one’s life could be in danger. The methods that Buddhaghosa recommends for eliminating
or counteracting angry emotions are gradual and progressive. In other words, there are
various ways to counteract anger. Each way becomes harder, more intense, and requiring
more effort than the previous one. Buddhaghosa, however, describes that in the climax of
the metta meditation, the barrier between oneself and others is eliminated/broken by
“accomplishing mental impartiality towards the four persons, that is to say, himself, the dear
person, the neutral person and the hostile person”1 (Vsm. IX.40). This statement assumes first
of all that there is some kind of barrier (siima) between oneself (atta) and others (para) and
that the barrier can be broken by “accomplishing mental impartiality” (samacittam
sampadento). This paper attempts to conceptualize (a) how the barrier exists between self
and other, (b) and what is meant by “accomplishing mental impartiality” as an ideal moral
response to anger.
Generally, there is a natural boundary between persons due to the very fact that each
individual being is physically different from another. In that sense, the barrier between self
and other may simply refer to the distinct identity of each and every individual (being) as
composed of a physical body and capable of thinking and feeling emotions in different ways.
However, the barrier that Buddhaghosa is referring to does not seem to me, to be due to the
simple individual differences; but boundaries that are mentally, emotionally, or perceptually
constructed. Therefore, breaking this boundary between distinct individuals, I argue, does not
refer to the invasion of each individual into the private world of others, but, rather it refers to
a possibility of perceptual reconditioning. In such perceptual reconditioning the distinctness
of individual identity is not completely eliminated, but is felt and conceptualized in terms of
a shared and intersubjective space and karmic reality. Thus, I argue, the mental impartiality
1
Athā 'nena punapunaṃ mettāyantena attani piyapuggale majjhatte verīpuggale ti catūsu janesu
samacittataṃ sampādentena sīmasambhedo kātabbo.
Sraman 2
(samacitta) accomplished by the practice of metta capacitates an individual to have greater
moral accountability for one’s own actions and thoughts with an awareness of that
intersubjective reality - which is very simply characterised by each individual being’s basic
shared desire to live in happiness and peace.
Anger is one of the causes that does not only create the mental barrier between
individuals. Instead, it sustains the barrier. The rationale for the practice of metta as an
antidote to counteract anger is very simple according to Buddhaghosa. It is because of the
extremely egregious effects of anger on both the one who is angry and the one towards
whom the anger is directed. Whatever the reasons that might induce someone to get angry,
Buddhaghosa is resolute in maintaining that anger is not permissible in any form at any time.
Accordingly, an “angry person is a prey to anger, ruled by anger; though well bathed, well
anointed, with hair and beard trimmed and clothed in white, yet he is ugly, being a prey to
anger” (Vsm. IX.15, p.294). Notice here how the physical beauty is contrasted to that of the
mind. An angry person is ugly, in spite of wearing beautiful clothes. People do use these
notions of physical appearances of being beautiful or ugly - to discriminate - or create barriers
- between each other but that does not necessarily convey what kind of a person one is.
According to Buddhaghosa, when overpowered by a negative emotion - that emotion
pervades one’s way of being. Buddhaghosa describes anger not merely as a mental or
emotional state but as a person’s manner of being or living in the world. A person who has
an angry temperament is referred to as dosacarita. Although people in general get angry, a
dosacarita person seems to be one who lives anger and habitually is prone to get angry to a
greater degree than an average person who might get angry only when something is not
according to his will. Etymologically, carita is derived from the verbal root car which means
“to move”. Coupled with dosa, carita refers to the person’s temperament with which he moves
around with the emotions of anger, hatred, or resentment. Thus anger is very much a bodily
expression as much as it is a mental or emotional state. Some of the descriptions of a person
of dosacarita (angry or hating temperament) illustrate this fact regarding anger as an
embodied expression.
One of hating temperament grasps the broom tightly, and he sweeps uncleanly and
unevenly with a harsh noise, hurriedly throwing up the sand on each side. … acts
tensely, stiffly and unevenly…..When eating he makes a lump that fills his mouth,
and he eats hurriedly without savouring the taste. He is aggrieved when he gets
something not good. (Vsm. III. 93)
Sraman 3
Thus anger or hate functions as a behavioural code influencing the movements and
activities very much on a physical level. He neither gets his activities accomplished
satisfactorily nor is able to enjoy a peaceful way of being. He cannot even enjoy the taste of
foods he eats. In this manner, Buddhaghosa shows how dosa anger or hate is not conducive
to one’s own happiness. Anger is also harmful within interpersonal relationships. When the
angry person himself is not happy, he wishes the ill, suffering, misfortune, failure, and so on
of others. (Vsm IX. 15.). This is an illustration of boundaries are created in the mind due to
anger.
The project of Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga is not merely to explain the
dangerous effects of anger on individual or interpersonal levels. Buddhaghosa is more
interested in explaining the ways of managing, in fact, eliminating the emotions of anger. As
I stated earlier, according to Buddhaghosa, anger or hate cannot be a valid Buddhist means
of responding to any aggressive situation, even when one’s bodily limbs are severed by a
hostile person (Vsm IX. 28-31). Although this may sound emotionally disturbing to some that
the bodhisattva allowed himself to be unjustly tortured physically, Buddhaghosa shows the
possibility of an alternative way of being by gradually eliminating anger and cultivating moral
values of loving kindness (metta). Nevertheless, Buddhaghosa does acknowledge it is not an
easy task. A major objective of the Visuddhimagga is, in fact, to explore that possibility.
An initial suggestion for a person of angry temperament (dosacarita), is to to live in a
beautiful place. The appropriate living place for the person of hating temperament is one
that should be:
“not too high or too low, provided with shade and water, with well-proportioned
walls, posts and steps, with well-prepared frieze work and lattice work, brightened
with various kinds of painting, with an even, smooth, soft floor, … smelling sweetly of
flowers, and perfumes and scents set about for homely comfort, which makes
one happy and glad at the mere sight of it”. (Vsm. III. 98).
With these details, Budhaghosa recognises a very important factor conducive to moral
transformation. Such moral transformation is impacted by changing the living conditions in
the environment. It is very much pre-intentional - meaning that the person does not
deliberately take a meditation subject to transform his mental or emotional state and moral
character. Buddhaghosa acknowledges that a person’s agency is in some way influenced, if
Sraman 4
not overpowered, by the surrounding natural environment. He becomes “glad and happy at
the mere sight of it” irrespective of his temperament.
By drawing attention to the environment, I think Buddhaghosa recognises and
emphasises a moral intersubjectivity with the natural world. In other words, the beauty in the
world strikes a deep resonance in the subjective experience of an individual. This shared
beauty is affecting a change of moral character and relationship to the world.
The alternative energy that Buddhaghosa encourages to develop to eliminate anger
is metta or loving kindness, which in the most simple terms would be wishing wellbeing for
oneself and others. Metta is developed by changing one’s way of thinking or perceiving the
world. Initially it begins by contemplating on the harmful effects of anger on oneself and
one’s relationships and by generating positive regards for others - such as acknowledging
the goodness in the hostile persons at whom one is angry. Acknowledgement of the
appreciative qualities, Buddhaghosa explains, will slowly divert one’s attention from the
negative aspects of that person and consequently eliminate anger. Thus whereas one’s
tendency is to reverberate with the feeling of anger in one’s mind the metta practice helps to
inculcate positive attitudes. I refer to this kind of changing the moral focus or direction of the
mind from things that generate negative emotions such as hate to things that inculcate
positive energies such as loving kindness as perceptual re-conditioning. This is also alluded
to by the fourfold perceptual or cognitive errors (vipallasa or sanskrit viparyasa) such as
perceiving happiness in what is actually suffering, purity in what is actually impure,
permanence in what is actually impermanent, and self in what is actually non-self. The entire
system of Buddhist spiritual practice is intended to vitiate these cognitive errors (vipallasas).
Cultivation of metta is therefore not merely the absence of anger at a given time. It is a way
of being and a technique of relating to the world by radically reconditioning the way one
feels and perceives the world.
In explicating how loving kindness should be practiced, Buddhaghosa recognises how
beings exist as distinct individuals but within a shared and intersubjective karmic, spatial, and
temporal reality. This meditation is a process of channeling a perceptual sensitivity and
spatiality that will cross the boundaries between individual subjective emotions of anger and
hatred to the realisation of a shared reality which is that every person loves oneself and does
not wish any harm to beset upon them. The following verse that Buddhaghosa extracts from
Sraman 5
the Samyuttanikaya - a canonical text, is a typical example of cultivating metta by feeling
oneself in an in connection to others.
“I visited all quarters with my mind
Nor found I any dearer than myself;
Self is likewise to every other dear;
Who loves himself will never harm another” (Vsm. IX.10.)2
The canonical context of the above verse is that King Kosala, rising up from his
morning meditation, one day asked his wife Queen Mallika, whom did she loved the most.
She replied that she loved nobody as much as she did herself. The king too agreed that he
too had the same feeling. Confounded that, in a world where people relate to each other
through the emotions of love, but, in reality, do love only oneself, both went to the Buddha
for an explanation. The Buddha appreciates this realisation and encourages that because of
this truth they should refrain from harming others. Therefore, I think, it is a radical
reconditioning of one’s perception - one has to feel oneself in a way that one is able to feel
how others feel themselves. This kind of perceptual reconditioning, I think, gradually
culminates into breaking the barriers between self and others, accomplishes “mental
impartiality” (samacitta).
What is implicated here, I think, is that people do live in the world - in a shared space
together. But in their extremely egoistic thinking they do not take into account the other
people or do so only for the fulfilment of own emotional or material desires. This verse does
not denigrate or condone seeking own happiness to be anything wrong but it encourages to
do so in a way that does not harm or objectify others. From this perspective, happiness is
relational in the sense that, in one’s seeking for happiness, one has to acknowledge the
existence and claims or desire of others for happiness too. The metta practice in fact takes a
step further - it encourages to not only acnkowledge but also to actively wish happiness for
others. Accordingly, it is impossible to achieve true happiness or progress on one’s spiritual
path if one wishes only own happiness.
For even if he developed loving-kindness for a hundred or a thousand years in
this way, “I am happy” and so on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops
2
Sabbā disā anuparigamma cetasā, Nev’ ajjhagā piyataram attanā kvaci; Evaṃ piyo puthu attā
paresaṃ, Tasmā na hiṃse paraṃ atthakāmo ti
Sraman 6
it in this way: “I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I
want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too, (Vsm IX.10).
People have distinct individual identities and subjective experiences but are situated
in a shared space and are conditioned by temporal and karmic laws which provide the field
of intersubjective experience. The fact that we are all situated in a shared space itself implies
a deep interconnectedness. Thus, happiness cannot be achieved without fully realising this
interconnectedness with others. Satisfaction enjoyed by an angry person, according to
Buddhaghosa, is not actual happiness. In order for one to enjoy actual happiness it is
important to wish the happiness of others as well. Whereas every individual is prone to seek
own happiness in an individualistic manner, Buddhaghosa invites us to re-condition our ways
of perceiving the others so that the intersubjective experience of our shared space is more
deliberate and morally charged.
In conclusion, metta is an intersubjective moral energy or technique that cuts across
individual subjectivities by empowering individuals to feel each other in a very deep
psychological and emotional way. The way that Buddhaghosa encourages to develop metta
is by drawing our attention to how individuals are situated and embedded in the broader
realities and laws of time, space (or the social and natural environment), and karma in an
interconnected manner.
Biobliography
Nyanamoli, Bhikkhu, tr. The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga) of Bhadantacarya
Buddhaghosa. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.
