"May all beings be happy!"
Wow, how could I have written about anything besides metta in a buddhist blog concerning relationships between sentient beings? Metta is a difficult word despite its simple essence. Good luck trying to find it in the dictionary because it's probably not in there. This is because metta is a concept in Buddhist language- but generally a word that emerged from Eastern thought- that is difficult to translate into English. The closest translation is hybrid word: lovingkindness. I'll take care not to give a concrete definition of this word as most eastern languages, modern and ancient, for example, Pali and Sanskrit depend on vagueness and open-ended sentence structures.
Loving...Kindness. Metta. Metta, lovingkindness. It is a way of being. It is a full-body sensation. A perception of mind. It is the way of being. It is harmonious. When I think of metta, I think of lions, cats, birds, bears, babies, and deer picnicking under the shade of a willow by a slow stream, all sharing a grand yet tranquil time, eating, drinking, laughing and smiling.
Now, imagine yourself on a short nature walk. You’re just taking a few minutes to stretch your legs, give your eyes a break from the papers and screens, and to get some fresh air.
The trail snakes away from your line of sight and around a bend. You hear some sounds coming from the creek below. You walk over towards the clamor and clear the shrubbery to get a clear view. Lions! And Tigers! And Bears! Aah! A baby! A lion with a deer leg in its mouth. You freak out, wanting so badly to dash in there and save the baby (and maybe a kitten or two). You take off through the brush.
Can you pick out which scenario portrayed metta? It's simple, right? Both scenes were of metta. You see, metta is a feeling of oneness. In terms of metta, all the creatures were caring for one another and enjoying the feast. You also had metta for overcoming fear and dashing to the rescue. Moreover, what are we to make of the lion gnawing on the deer leg? Hmm this one's a bit difficult to explain, so here's a Buddhist saying:
One, persisting in the state of metta, should have no doubts, second or 3rd thoughts about feeding their hand to a starving dog by the road. Such an action should be as inconsequential as an autumn leaf falls to the ground.
Well, it goes something like that. And I think I should take a moment to say that I am only an amateur, freelance Buddhist and with only minimal studies of suttas and discourse. Take anything I say about Buddhism with 300 grains of salt.
What in the world does this have to do with asexuality? Not much but this: metta is sexless; it's a feeling that the Buddhas say is a natural and neutral state of being when no defilements of mind (ignorance, fear) are present. I like to think about it this way, "How do my penis and their mammary glands concern this very moment?"
I'll go into further depths of this question/philosophy and the word I (think I) coined concerning metta and sexlessness and nonsexuality.
Sexual Intercaste: (n. social psych, relations; interpersonal)
hierarchical system of perception and understanding in which a person relates to 'others' in terms of reproductive roles and genitalia, or sexuality and orientation, or all of the above.
Posts
