Dread of Metta

I'd love to hear any thoughts or ponders on this...

I have run into a fair number of people over the years whose response to metta practice (or similar practices) is similar to the reaction of a cat which doesn't want to go in the cat carrier to go to the vet for vaccinations. "NOOO, can't, won't, too bad, no way no how."

So I'm curious for those who have tried and hated it, used to hate it then came to like it, or refuse to try it because it's too icky, what exactly is (or was) the ick factor about? If you used to not like it and later were able to happily incorporate it into practice, what were the changes, insights, etc. that made this possible? Any ruminations?

My own two cents is that aversion to metta probably falls into one of two categories (with my usual hyperbolic way of describing it):
1) I probably can't do it, so if I try I'll fail, I feel like a fool, and I'll feel vulnerable, and I'll be ashamed, and then I'll be cast out of society and die alone.
2) If I try and succeed, it might open the floodgates to all sorts of weirdness: I might lose any sense of justice and right and wrong, I might have to let go of things I really like to dislike, and then I'll no longer know who or what I am or what anything means, and then I'll go insane and die.

But I'd love to hear the (many) other feelings/responses/ideas anyone has, from any level of experience or point of view.

My initial response (I came around, but I remember feeling this) was "too hippie and new age and pollyannaish, which was exactly what I didn't want from meditation; obviously irrelevant to the process of awakening because not insight-y."

For me, the thing that made me change my mind was (1) reading the Pali Canon, coming to identify as Buddhist and seeing how metta fit into that picture, and (2) seeing experientially that when I was angry with other people it was basically extremely aversive for me, so it was actually a very self-interested act to try to feel loving-kindness and not anger or hatred toward others.

My initial issues with Metta were: 1. that it felt forced & artificial, or insincere, and 2. I ran into my resistance and justifications around why I couldn't/wouldn't open my heart to people who I felt didn't deserve Metta due to my experiences with them, horrible things they had done or said, etc. Memories play a major part in feeling blocked while offering Metta to the disliked person. The second reason is more revealing to me about my inability to put aside past grievances or to offer love unconditionally.

I had never been taught how to look upon myself with kindness. But, I was an expert at self-criticism. So, Metta didn't just feel insincere toward certain people, it felt that way while offering it to myself too. With time, it became easier to feel warmth, forgiveness, and soothed. Now, if I feel myself slipping into self-critical thinking, which according to the dhamma are unwholesome thoughts that bring about suffering, I attempt to generate Metta, or wholesome, forgiving thoughts, to myself. The more I do this, the more infrequently I find myself engaged in self-criticism.

I think one of the ick factors is: "do you think I'm a chump? wishful thinking gets no one nowhere."

The turning point for me was two things: 1) arrival of strong bliss feelings as a part of practice (easy to give it away when it is in excess), and 2) an appreciation of psychology of abundance (mario martinez, mind-body code) where humans will self-sabotage their own success or acheivement if they don't have a sense of worthiness.

every3rdthought wrote: My initial response (I came around, but I remember feeling this) was "too hippie and new age and pollyannaish, which was exactly what I didn't want from meditation; obviously irrelevant to the process of awakening because not insight-y.".

That was/is me, too. Metta sounded nice but not the real, hard core direct path. I had gone to some vipassana retreats with a teacher who invited me to come to a week long metta retreat. I thought wasting a precious week of retreat on metta when I could use it for insight practice wouldn't do and begged off with excuse that I couldn't afford it. But he said I could go for free (and in fact offered to give me $50), so I had to go.

Turned out it was very powerful and had maybe the biggest heart-opening A&P I ever had on retreat. I think that was a turning point in my practice.

Have to admit though, that even though spontaneous metta moments are normal, I still don't spend much time on formal metta, preferring to do vipassana or inquiry, the real stuff.

Yeah, for some reason the same thing happens with me. Once I had a pretty nice insight after doing metta - a huge lump in my sternum dissolved suddenly about half an hour after a 2 hour session of metta. And I never got back to it in the same way. Feeling really stupid, like I need to give it another few goes.

Kacchapa wrote: I had gone to some vipassana retreats with a teacher who invited me to come to a week long metta retreat. I thought wasting a precious week of retreat on metta when I could use it for insight practice wouldn't do and begged off with excuse that I couldn't afford it. But he said I could go for free (and in fact offered to give me $50), so I had to go.

Being given $50 would be enough to arouse metta in anyone, right? Cool strategy

My second vipassana retreat was a 5-day and we spent the first day doing metta - I was totally like, what a waste! But tried to do it diligently because I am a good kid Didn't convince me at that time though.

My old teacher (not really a personal teacher but the leader of the group I was involved in), Bhante Sujato, teaches metta as a primary practice. I did two of his weekend metta retreats, which were pretty cool, very chilled but also serious, but no fireworks which was what I was looking for at that stage (though on the first one it was like all my negative stuff actually came up much more except in formal practice periods, I think I was DNing hard and also in a difficult period generally).

One of the interesting things for me though was that a lot of people teaching metta (all Theravada tradition, mostly monastics but also some laypeople) didn't seem to be giving it off at all. I don't really know what to think of this, i.e. whether it's like expecting an awake person to be your perfect ideal, or whether there should be some genuine bleed-through or whatever you'd call it.

every3rdthought wrote: ...
One of the interesting things for me though was that a lot of people teaching metta (all Theravada tradition, mostly monastics but also some laypeople) didn't seem to be giving it off at all. I don't really know what to think of this, i.e. whether it's like expecting an awake person to be your perfect ideal, or whether there should be some genuine bleed-through or whatever you'd call it.

This is interesting, in light of a couple scenarios I've run into here. Brazilians generally value "wearing a smile" it seems, and a kind of enthusiastic expressiveness (though it varies by region - I should probably just say Rio, not Brazil). Anyway, I'd had these couple of really profound talks with my parish priest, and he was just the embodiment of compassion, I thought. But he is a quiet, serious sort of guy. He doesn't slap you on the back and wear a big grin and laugh at everything. I was talking to an acquaintance who is having a really hard time with something, and I suggested she ask the priest to help resolve it. And she said he didn't seem like he would understand, that she talked to him about something once and he didn't show in his face (ie use big facial expressions) to indicate he was sympathetic, and thus he seemed cold and distant to her. That's not exactly how she said it, but that's what I got from her explanation.

And similarly, at the Buddhist center my husband attends (and helps manage), they've had a real challenge with visiting Bhantes. There are resident meditators - you can go there on self retreat, and are supposed to stick to a monastic schedule and do work (cleaning, repairs, cooking) to help keep things running. And there was one Bhante everyone really liked and cooperated with, because he was super expressive and overtly jolly and if people didn't keep their repsonsibilities he was either lax about enforcement or enforced it with jolly encouragement. Where another, who had a rather serious comportment and insisted on keeping the precepts and schedule with chastising words and firmness, everyone thought was "mean and grumpy" and they complained constantly about him. The teaching of both (according to my husband, who is saturated in sutta study and also gets along well with all sorts of people) was equally valuable and deep.

Pope Francis is another example. If you read the commentaries and essays written by Pope Benedict (the former Pope), they are really rich and insightful and there's deep spirituality in them. But he had a sort of serious, scholarly demeanor and didn't walk around with an easy smile hugging people, so a lot of people really tend to like Pope Francis better.

And even here, we have our own darling Chris, who is a really wise, easy-going and compassionate guy (I've met him in person), but comes across as gruff with his little pithy comments.

I agree, it can definitely be a cultural thing. And also a personality style - but, maybe this is arrogance about my own perspicacity but there are some people who are quiet, non-expressive and introverted who definitely still give off a sense of metta whereas some do just seem 'tight,' grumpy or cold. It can also be cultural in particular spiritual traditions I think, e.g. in my experience Burmese-trained Buddhist monastics tend to be serious and a bit harsh, though of course there are always complete exceptions to any of those rules.

I really appreciate all the diverse experiences people have shared here. For me, when I did formal Metta practice (such as at the Buddhist center), it just slotted into an existing channel, so to speak, since even years before in Santeria I had learned the importance of praying for others or doing rituals for others. The basic greeting ritual when visiting another practitioner's home was to honor the deities at their altar and pray outloud for the health, well being, spiritual development and good fortune of the person you were visiting, and that basic formula was deeply mixed into nearly all ritual work and daily practice. Daily morning prayers included good will and respect towards all of ones ritual "family" as well as blood family, each mentioned by name, and so on. So to say, Metta practice wasn't something unfamiliar when I encountered it in a different form and context. (I don't think Metta practice and prayer for others are exactly the same, but they certainly have a great deal of overlap, at least functionally.)

I understand the challenges this sort of thing brings up, but it was helpful to hear them expressed from various people's direct experience in their own words.

I've had experiences where it was good, but I guess my overall slant would be that it seems like something extra.

So to me it's something that can be let go of, a slight grasping. I would say my better experiences were more in the vein of Thomas Keating, i.e. kind of passively being aware of the love that is already present.

Eric wrote: I've had experiences where it was good, but I guess my overall slant would be that it seems like something extra.

So to me it's something that can be let go of, a slight grasping. I would say my better experiences were more in the vein of Thomas Keating, i.e. kind of passively being aware of the love that is already present.

Part of the point of metta practice is to point you to seeing that, eventually. For some people it will happen spontaneously eventually, but cultivating the ground for that insight to arise is helpful for many.

Yeah, to me it's getting our resistance out of the way so that the good can be seen and done.

every3rdthought wrote: My initial response (I came around, but I remember feeling this) was "too hippie and new age and pollyannaish, which was exactly what I didn't want from meditation; obviously irrelevant to the process of awakening because not insight-y."

+1
I read Daniel's post of Magick and the Brahma Viharas
This made me curious....then my wife started bitching that we didn't seem to be "connecting". This got worse so I started casting love spells on her....umm practicing happiness and loving kindness. It seemed to do the trick...we connected and are doing well. I also found that this is a great concentration exercise and allows me to do several things at the same time so I do it at the beginning of every sit now.
~D

Dread? no... it had powerful effects on me, and if I'd known in advance, I might have had second thoughts.

Like any meditation, really.

It seems to have a kind of magnet effect on some people. That is something to be aware of. It can be weird to be in high demand all of a sudden, especially when one would rather be left alone because of certain mind states.

Cheers,
Florian

Florian, are you saying it's made you more likeable and you're not sure that's a good thing???

Don't tell Dharmandy!!! He'll be so disappointed

Actually, the Metta practice was one of the factors (a powerful one) contributing to a landslide in my personal relationships, most noticeably with my parents in law. The love totally disturbed the delicate balance of terror we had established. Had I known in advance what would happen to all of us, I might have turned back. It's a good thing we can't see into the future.

Nothing I wouldn't do again. But that's because I know it turned out so well Without that reassuring knowledge, I don't know...

Cheers,
Florian

I know someone who wouldn't do metta practice because it used the phrase "loving kindness" which he thought was some gooey, sentimental crap. When he was told to change "loving kindness" to "kind regard" he had no trouble with it.

I have seen metta meditation taught, in my opinion, incorrectly as just repeating positive words. People taught this way never got in touch with with feeling of loving kindness and were turned off by the whole thing.

Lately when I lead a guided metta meditation for a group, after going though with the regular steps I end with a suggestion to get in touch with their original object of loving kindness and then drop the object so they are left with a feeling of warm and openness, no barrier between them and anything else. Ken McLeod once led a group to feel this way toward a cushion.

I remember a time when I was disinterested in metta practice, due to a couple of factors: (1) It seemed too self-helpy, like just another way to trick the mind into being happy without any good reason; and (2) because I didn't really understand the purpose of the practice and how it tied in with other parts of the path.

I now consider metta to be an effective attitude to have on the path, which makes it something worth cultivating through conscious practice. An experiential shift occurs when we have genuine feelings of good will toward others, not wishing anyone to suffer. One need only compare it to its opposite, ill will, to see how metta is an antidote to an attitude/emotion that is extremely toxic to all levels of one's being.

P.S. Another thing I like about metta is that when it is done in an honest way, it naturally benefits both self and other. No one is left out! It's as the Dalai Lama says: be "wisely selfish." Helping others (the opposite of wishing others to suffer) helps us to feel happy, and thus, not to suffer. It's a win-win.