Dear Dipankaro and friends,
Reading about your posts about mettaa, I want to add something.
Dipankaro quoted from the subco:
The sub-commentaries defined the word in this way: "mejjati
siniyhatiiti
mitto"; (Mahavagga .tiikaa etc.) It implies to the dhamma that loves
but not the
person.
I appreciate this. Mettaa is not a person, it is a dhamma, a reality
arising because of its own conditions. It is the cetasika adosa, non-
aversion, it is not mine or self. It is one of the three sobhana
hetus, the others being alobha, non-attachment, and amoha or paññaa.
When it is directed towards a living being, it is mettaa, kindness.
When kusala citta with adosa cetasika arises, there is always alobha,
non-attachment as well. Thus, mettaa, friendship has nothing to do
with attachment.
Nina.

Op 25-dec-2007, om 6:30 heeft boaz amichay het volgende geschreven:

> The word metta comes from the sanskrit word mitra. Mitra means a
> "friend" or a "companion". It comes from the root mith which means
> "to unite" "to couple" "to meet".

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]