Talk:Brahmavihara

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Religion / Eastern Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy

Brahma-viharas fused with Brahmavihara. Article in need of a cleanup. --Gakuro 09:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted TonyMPNS addition of "The Buddha himself did not specify directing the apramanas towards oneself" because I found this text (for Mudita Meditation) saying "He should then break down the barriers by means of impartiality towards the four, that is, towards these three and himself". I do not have access to a copy of the Visuddhimagga, but if this translation is "correct", and if it says similarly for the other Brahma Viharas, then the note is uneccesary. See also similar discussion on Talk:Metta. I also do not think that what we read in the Pali Canon and in the other scriptures was what the Buddha actually said, but rather what was said, heard, remembered, recited, and eventually, after having gone through many generations of people, riciting to eachother, was written down, and copied many times, again by people with their own views and ideas of what might actually have happened (or even worse, with political agendas). What the Buddha said is almost certainly somehting like what is in the texts, but using them as word-by-word transcript of discourses is not something that I'd like to do. So, whether or not he said to direct the Metta, Karuna, Mudita, and Uppekha towards oneself or not will not be known, but some texts seems to point (at least partially) in that direction. I'd love to have access to Buddhaghosa's source material... --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hallo Andkaha. Thanks for your comments. Having checked the Pali, I cannot see anywhere in the sutta (unless my eyesight has deceived me!) where the Buddha specifically gives the admonition that the person should direct metta towards himself. Now, having established that point, I think it is perfectly valid for me to have a note saying that the Buddha does not specifically enjoin (in the sutta) such practice upon the meditator. What Buddhaghosa says is another matter. That is Buddhaghosa and not the Buddha. The whole point that I am trying to make is that the Buddha himself (as distinct from possibly later tradition) is not recorded as teaching a particular mode of practice. Yes, you may well be right that the suttas do not contain the verbatim word of the Buddha (most scholars would surely agree with you), but I do think that one nevertheless needs to respect what they say and be accurate in one's representation of them. I am not saying that the Buddha definitely did not teach the direction of metta etc. towards oneself (we can never know that for sure) - but that the relevant sutta has not recorded such a teaching. That is all I am saying, and which I wish to point out in the article. You are looking more at the wider picture - of Buddhist tradition - whereas I want to raise this one (neglected) point of specifically (alleged) Buddhic utterance (as recorded in that sutta). So I would like to replace my point somewhere in the article. Of course I would be perfectly happy to put it in a less prominent and more elegant place than before! We do not,fundamentally, disagree, I think. We are just looking at the matter from different perspectives. All best wishes to you, Andkaha. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commited a change which mentions the source and age of the practice as described in the article. Would you be happy with this change Tony? In stead of saying "the Buddha did not say", I say "Buddhaghosa says", more or less. --- Andkaha^(talk) 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Andkaha, for your helpful change. That is definitely much better - more precise. Ideally, I would like to add somewhere, in brackets, something like: "(however, there seems to be no written record in the suttas of the Buddha's explicitly teaching any specifically self-directed "apramanas" "). You probably will hate that, right? What do you think? Should we just see what other editors feel about this matter? I am not sure why you are reluctant to have such a sentence as the above inserted into the article - but if other editors object to it too, then I shall observe Wiki democracy and not insert it! Shall we see if we get views from other editors in the next week or so, either way? I don't want to "dig my heels in" here. I'm just curious to see what other people's views might be. What do you think about this, Andkaha? Cheers. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change you outline, Tony, is likely to attract a "citation needed" tag. We would need some source who has come to the conclusion that self-directed apramana is missing in the sutras. If you just have come to that conclusion yourself, that is original research. Moonsell (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am getting some sort of error where "File:Headline textInsert non-formatted text here--208.58.76.254 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)" Linebreak into article and with separator."]]\ nhey kiddie kidd ima type of budda u wabnt to chewe all ova my bubble gum lls hahajha imaa harajuku barbie so yea come hit me at 202-526-5178 The four Brahmavihā" and clicking the 'edit' button for that section puts me to a page that claims 'no such section' 83.166.29.213 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Tan. No user account. Just an IP.[reply]

I don't get those problems. Moonsell (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did an extensive cleanup. As part of it, I replaced "brahmaviharas" with the English term, "four immeasurables" in many places, to conform with Wikipedia's policy on avoiding jargon in your face. I hope this is useful. If "immeasurables is not the best term, perhaps others would like to substitute "sublime attitudes" or "sublime states" without sacrificing the other parts of the cleanup. "Immeasurables" is just the term I know, myself and can relate to. Moonsell (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the abodes/residence of brahma...--Elvenmuse (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bresaurus (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi readers and editors.

Would you not classify "four immeasurables" as just another form of jargon? I would define jargon as anything that does not make sense in plain English. For me, it is introducing another piece jargon to explain the original jargon of "brahmavihara" and it does not shed any extra light, if anything I think it confuses the matter as the "four immeasurables" is one of many translations.

Here's some thoughts I gathered from wiki style guides:

"Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult."^[1] --> I think this applies to keeping reference to the term consistent with the title of the article. I understand, of course, this also applies to just using the same term, which is no doubt your intention in the first place, Moonsell. So I dug a bit further...

"It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. Such words are equivalent to jargon, which should be explained somehow. In the English-language Wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first: sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text, with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it, and sometimes not. For example, see perestroika. Non-English words in the English-language Wikipedia should be written in italics." ^[2] -->The example article Perestroika uses perestroika as a term throughout the body text.

Also, link on jargon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Jargon#Technical_language (but I didn't find it particularly helpful for this talk topic!)

I think these wiki sources present a good case for using the term brahmavihara throughout the article, and Moonsell's idea of consistency is a valid one. If there are no objections to this over the next month, I will edit the article to consistently use brahmavihara.

The sutta on the benefits of loving-kindness mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya, ends with a final benefit "(11) if one does not penetrate further, one fares on to the brahma world."(p. 1573 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation). This implies that the practice of loving-kindness can be a foundation that finally culminates in Nibbana/Nirvana. I am not certain whether there is any secondary literature that discusses this sutta, as it may be interpreted to contradict the passages mentioned in this article that the Brahmaviharas do not culminate in Nibbana.--S Khemadhammo S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are uncertain whether a source exists for a "implied interpretation or conclusion", such conclusions are original research and inappropriate for this article or anywhere else in wikipedia. Find a reliable source first, then summarize it if WP:Due. Please see WP:OR and WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main question was whether this sutta was ever discussed in secondary literature. I don't have any opinion about any issues with regard to this article.S Khemadhammo (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue with all 4 hence I prefer to discuss here.

a] Only the Mudita lemma had this, quite useful, section (near and far enemy qualities are used a lot in descriptions on these qualities).

b] The text was not really complete (it missed one of the two far enemies).

What I did was

c] Fix that text to make in line with Vishudimagga text, which basically is the source (itself extracted from lots of sutras and Abidhamma text by our historic friend 2000 years back in a tropical island not far from India).

d] Added that text as reference

e] As there both the 'near enemies' and 'far enemies' in Vishudhimagga are not always the clearest translation, used a link to an authorative Theravada site for alternate terms I use in the lemma.

If no objections/improvement/additions by 'around this weekend' I will repeat exact same trick, with of course creating the section, for Metta/Karuna/Upeksha lemmas.

Tnx,

Erikdr (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brahmavihara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819075238/http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/immeasurables_love_compassion_equanimity_rejoicing.html to http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/immeasurables_love_compassion_equanimity_rejoicing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brahmavihara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628000301/http://ir.minpaku.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10502/1286/1/SER15_004.pdf to http://ir.minpaku.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10502/1286/1/SER15_004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about Mudita, from trying to describe the powerful feels I have felt that were the antithesis of schadenfreude. But now I have been able to set Mudita in context, and recognize what I have been working on in myself that: of Metta and Karuna. Albeit I need to learn to treat myself with more compassion and so apply the same understanding to all those around me. However, it is upekkha that I most sorely lack, and I am certain it would benefit me greatly. In many ways I am the antithesis of upekkha. But by being made aware of the existence of upekkha has helped me understand how stoic ideas might be integrate into my life. What your work in this article has given me is a framework of understanding, and a path into deeper research and greater understanding should I wish to take it. sadly all I can offer you in return is the wish for you all to have long, interesting and joy filled lives. Thanks again! X-mass (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]