user-1: Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally. On the one hand, my question is a little facetious (if only because, at least within the laity, not doing so is impractical in the extreme: why would spiritual help be any different?). On the other, it may raise some interesting riddles.
What does "the one taste of the dharmadhatu" mean except that? And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells, at least if the suffering in them is, like I believe it kinda is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that virtue is loved, via granting us "free will" (don't quote me on that).

user254: Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally.
Perhaps in practice the type of relationship varies -- see for example AN 4.111.
What does "the one taste of the dharmadhatu" mean except that?
I don't know about Mahayana, I think that from the Pali suttas "one taste" might be a reference to this (description of the dhamma-vinaya):

The ocean has just one taste, the taste of salt.
In the same way, this teaching and training has one taste, the taste of freedom.
Ud 5.5

And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells
Imagine if someone who you love is in hell, I'd suppose it's difficult to approve of that.
Approving of someone's suffering sounds to me to be the very opposite of mudita (which is one of the four brahmaviharas).
like I believe it is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that their virtue is loved (don't quote me on that)
There are different Christian sects with different doctrines, I heard one of them teach that hell is a self-imposed consequence of choosing to distance or to separate oneself from the love of God.
I imagine Buddhist doctrine is somewhat similar, i.e. that hell is a natural consequence of unskilful or unvirtuous actions and desires. Perhaps the definition of "skilful" is "eradicates suffering".
But the idea of Buddhas approving of suffering just sounds like anathema to me -- instead they would only approve of the skilful/noble ways that lead to non-suffering.
The closest I know of to the idea of suffering being good is this:

Is there anything like "positive suffering" for Buddhists?

And "wrathful" deities (from the Tibetan tradition):

What is a wrathful Buddha?


user23986: Good householder, like a farmer would first work on best land, the Buddha and his good monks teach first to monks, second to devoted lay people, and out of compassion sometimes also wanderer of other sects. Why? Because even a single sentence, if they understand, would merit much for them. - SN 42.7
And, yes, monks aren't given to teach those showing disregard and stinginess.
Yet thoughts of compassion will in all ways remain toward all, incl. "hopeless" cases. There the most compassionate action is to leave them far.

“In these three instances, monks, one can be recognized as a person of conviction & confidence. Which three? One wants to see virtuous people. One wants to hear the True Dhamma. One’s awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, one lives at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. In these three instances, monks, one can be recognized as a person of conviction & confidence.”
One who wants to see virtuous ones,
& wants to hear the True Dhamma
—having subdued the stain of stinginess—
is said to have conviction.

And those with proper attitudes will be taught of course fist and possible all.

-1: <p>Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally. On the one hand, my question is a little facetious (if only because, at least within the laity, not doing so is impractical in the extreme: why would spiritual help be any different?). On the other, it may raise some interesting riddles.</p>
<p>What does &quot;the one taste of the dharmadhatu&quot; mean except that? And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells, at least if the suffering in them is, like I believe it kinda is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that virtue is loved, via granting us &quot;free will&quot; (don't quote me on that).</p>
 254: <p><strong>Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally.</strong></p>
<p>Perhaps in practice the type of relationship varies -- see for example <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.111.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.111</a>.</p>
<p><strong>What does &quot;the one taste of the dharmadhatu&quot; mean except that?</strong></p>
<p>I don't know about Mahayana, I think that from the Pali suttas &quot;one taste&quot; might be a reference to this (description of the dhamma-vinaya):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ocean has just one taste, the taste of salt.
In the same way, this teaching and training has one taste, the taste of freedom.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/ud5.5/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ud 5.5</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells</strong></p>
<p>Imagine if someone who you love is in hell, I'd suppose it's difficult to approve of that.</p>
<p>Approving of someone's suffering sounds to me to be the very opposite of <em>mudita</em> (which is one of the four <em>brahmaviharas</em>).</p>
<p><strong>like I believe it is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that their virtue is loved (don't quote me on that)</strong></p>
<p>There are different Christian sects with different doctrines, I heard one of them teach that hell is a self-imposed consequence of choosing to distance or to separate oneself from the love of God.</p>
<p>I imagine Buddhist doctrine is somewhat similar, i.e. that hell is a natural consequence of unskilful or unvirtuous actions and desires. Perhaps the definition of &quot;skilful&quot; is &quot;eradicates suffering&quot;.</p>
<p>But the idea of Buddhas approving of suffering just sounds like anathema to me -- instead they would only approve of the skilful/noble ways that lead to non-suffering.</p>
<p>The closest I know of to the idea of suffering being good is this:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2927/254">Is there anything like &quot;positive suffering&quot; for Buddhists?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>And &quot;wrathful&quot; deities (from the Tibetan tradition):</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/10694/254">What is a wrathful Buddha?</a></li>
</ul>
 23986: <p>Good householder, like a farmer would first work on best land, the Buddha and his good monks teach first to monks, second to devoted lay people, and out of compassion sometimes also wanderer of other sects. Why? Because even a single sentence, if they understand, would merit much for them. - <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.007.wlsh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 42.7</a></p>
<p>And, yes, monks aren't given to teach those showing disregard and stinginess.</p>
<p>Yet thoughts of compassion will in all ways remain toward all, incl. &quot;hopeless&quot; cases. There the most compassionate action is to leave them far.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“In these three instances, monks, one can be recognized as a <a href="https://forum.sangham.net/index.php?topic=9273.msg18828#msg18828" rel="nofollow noreferrer">person of conviction</a> &amp; confidence. Which three? One wants to see virtuous people. One wants to hear the True Dhamma. One’s awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, one lives at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. In these three instances, monks, one can be recognized as a person of conviction &amp; confidence.”</p>
<p>One who wants to see virtuous ones,
&amp; wants to hear the True Dhamma
—having subdued the stain of stinginess—
is said to have conviction.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And those with proper attitudes will be taught of course fist and possible all.</p>
