A being is said to be a concept. - An aggregate is said to be ultimate reality.
I strongly believe that as long as one has not experienced oneself what actually is meant with this differentiation - both remain concepts!
Now my unorthodox way of metta:
the sending of metta is a concept to describe immeasurable risings and passings moments of rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana. They all arise mutually dependent - to think the aggregates as independent entities is concept, naming immeasurable rising and passing moments of rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vedana.
being is a concept to describe immeasurable risings and passings moments of rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana. None of them arise independent of any one of the other. All these incredibly fast arising and passing rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana - IF DIRECTLY EXPERIENCED (otherwise they remain concepts, just like 'being') will take on the all pervading taste of ANICCA, DUKKHA, ANATTA.
all pervading, because if one is to follow the arisings and passings - conceptualization as we know it has to come to a full stop.
after some time one might come to senses and be able again to name what one has experienced with the concepts of the pali language as - anicca, dukkha, anatta.
but no question anymore that there would be anything anywhere within the all - the 5 aggregates, inside and outside - not of the nature of anicca, dukkha, anatta.
so Johnny, mike, RobertK and Wolfgang are concepts, where we can differentiate these 4 guys. Ultimately experienced they all taste like anicca, dukkha, anatta - with no difference, no demarcation between them.
now to experience all pervading dukkha really does hurt. And there grows the attitude of being done with those 5 aggregates (which is a concept that describes incredibly fast arising and passing rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana - which, if taken as atta, hurt so much) This 'being done with' brings ease. However, all of that is so subtle, it happens in complete silence of thought, still so pregnant with meaning. One can only be misunderstood if one tries to describe it with language, as I try it here. (ridiculing myself as anyone drunken with love (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
Never forget, this whole reading of this text is only on the level of concept, but if one is really able to look into it - merely rapidly arising and passing rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana, which don't even remain for a millisecond.
And because there is no differentiation, no demarcation between these 4 guys - in such a conceptless state - the immensity of hurt, and the ease of being done with - might appear to flow all by itself. We might be able to conceptualize afterwards on the level of concepts again.
But I must be really unorthodoxly in love - no where in the Sutta I read that it is possible to experience metta, karuna, mudita together with upekkha all at once as an offspring of insight meditation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif