Quote from: FZ on 01 November 2025, 12:54:18 PMPertama-tama, cinta kasih perlu dikembangkan terlebih dahulu ke diri sendiri : Semoga saya bahagia, terbebas dari penderitaan, atau semoga saya terbebas dari permusuhan, penderitaan dan kecemasan. Namun apakah hal ini tidak bertentangan kah dengan sutta dan vibhanga ?
Formulasi 4 brahmavihara dalam sutta adalah sbb (misalnya dalam AN 4.125):
QuoteIdha, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo mettāsahagatena cetasā ekaṁ disaṁ pharitvā viharati, tathā dutiyaṁ tathā tatiyaṁ tathā catutthaṁ. Iti uddhamadho tiriyaṁ sabbadhi sabbattatāya sabbāvantaṁ lokaṁ mettāsahagatena cetasā vipulena mahaggatena appamāṇena averena abyāpajjena pharitvā viharati.
Di sini, para bhikkhu, seseorang berdiam dengan meliputi satu arah dengan pikiran yang dipenuhi dengan cinta kasih, demikian pula arah ke dua, arah ke tiga, dan arah ke empat. Demikian pula ke atas, ke bawah, ke sekeliling, dan ke segala penjuru, dan kepada semua makhluk seperti kepada diri sendiri, ia berdiam dengan meliputi seluruh dunia dengan pikiran yang dipenuhi dengan cinta kasih, luas, luhur, tanpa batas, tanpa permusuhan, tanpa niat buruk.
Praktik mengarahkan cinta kasih kepada diri sendiri berasal dari kata "sabbattatāya" yang diterjemahkan sebagai "kepada semua makhluk seperti kepada diri sendiri". Tetapi dalam beberapa pembacaan teks Pali kata ini dibaca sebagai "sabbatthatāya" yang berarti "dengan segala cara", sehingga ada yang menganggap praktik mengembangkan cinta kasih kepada diri sendiri tidak sesuai dengan sutta.
Menurut Bhikkhu Analayo dalam tulisannya berjudul "Immeasurable Meditations and Mindfulness", kemungkinan pembacaan yang lebih tepat adalah "sabbatthatāya" (dengan segala cara), namun bukan berarti praktik mengarahkan cinta kasih kepada diri sendiri tidak bermanfaat dan salah, melainkan ini bukan satu-satunya cara pengembangan metta:
QuoteThe idea of directing mettā to oneself might be related to a particular term used in the standard Pāli description of the meditative radiation. Different editions of the Pāli discourses vary in the spelling of this term, which can occur either as sabbatthatāya or as sabbattatāya. The difference involves a single letter, which is either an aspirated th or else an unaspirated t (after sabbat- and before -atāya). An aspirated and an unaspirated consonant can easily be confused with each other. The meaning of the two terms, however, is quite different. The first mentioned reading sabbatthatāya conveys the sense "in every way." The other reading sabbattatāya, which is the version accepted by the Visuddhimagga (Vism 308), can convey the sense "to all as to oneself ."
In the standard description of the radiation, the term in question occurs between sabbadhi, "everywhere," and sabbāvantaṃ lokaṃ, "the entire world." The repetition of near synonyms occurs with high frequency in oral Pāli texts, making it fairly probable that the term under discussion expresses a meaning closely similar to what precedes and what follows it. This supports the sense "in every way" as the more likely reading. In fact, the alternative idea "to all as to oneself" does not seem to be attested anywhere else in the Pāli discourses (Maithrimurthi 1999). A comparative study of parallels to Pāli descriptions of the boundless radiation confirms the impression that the original idea would have been "in every way" (Anālayo 2015). Given that the Visuddhimagga opts for the other reading, the variant "to all as to oneself" might have triggered, or else at least supported, the arising of the idea that the practice should be directed toward oneself.
From the viewpoint of the meditative radiation, the idea of directing mettā and compassion to oneself does not seem to be required, as a practitioner cultivating the radiation will anyway be fully immersed in the respective immeasurable or boundless state. It would not be possible to pervade all directions with a mind imbued with mettā or compassion without being affected by such pervasion oneself. This makes it fairly probable that the perceived need to include oneself would have arisen only once the meditation practice came to rely on the employment of other individuals as the object. In such a situation, it would be more natural for the idea to arise that oneself must be explicitly included among the recipients.
Whatever may be the final word on the exact stages in the development under discussion here, there can be little doubt that the meditative approach to mettā and compassion by way of taking four individuals as one's objects, proceeding from oneself to a friend, a neutral person, and then a hostile person, is a later element. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with it. The wide-spread appeal of this form of practice testifies to its practical value. However, it does mean that this mode of practice need not be considered the only possible way to go about the meditative cultivation of mettā and compassion.
Baca juga diskusi dengan topik yang sama di forum Suttacentral:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/why-does-almost-everyone-teach-the-brahmaviharas-wrong/23883
