Early and Mahayana Buddhism consider mettā as a core practice, but their interpretations and associated practices differ somewhat. I am writing to check if the understanding below is fair and represents the metta practice in Early Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism correctly.
In Early Buddhism, mettā is one of the four sublime states, focusing on universal love and goodwill towards all beings without distinction. It is often practiced alongside other sublime states, such as compassion, appreciative joy, and equanimity. Mettā meditation typically involves radiating feelings of loving-kindness towards oneself, followed by other beings, gradually expanding the scope to include all beings. The emphasis is on developing an unbiased and all-encompassing love that transcends personal relationships and extends to all sentient beings.
Mahayana Buddhism, while valuing mettā, emphasizes the concept of bodhicitta, the aspiration for enlightenment for the sake of all beings. This ideal infuses the practice of mettā with a strong sense of responsibility to liberate all beings from suffering. Mahayana Buddhism also introduces a broader range of meditation practices and visualizations to cultivate mettā, often involving the visualization of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas embodying these qualities. Moreover, Mahayana texts highlight the importance of engaging in social action and compassionate activities to express mettā. This active dimension distinguishes it from the more contemplative approach in Early Buddhism.
Would it be fair to situate the understanding and practice of mettā in the wider framework of the four sublime states in Early Buddhism and in the wider concern for achieving Buddahood in Mahayana Buddhism as described above?
Mettā,
Vu
