"Compassion means skillful action" - huh?

[三江源]

Anyway I dont want to sound too anal about this , as it is not really that important to me.

 

suninmyeyes,

yes I know what you mean. I dont want to split hairs either. We might say : I have an anal region, yet I am not my anal region.

We could say that every day if we wanted to, it could help us achieve something wonderful.

[Aetherous]

Oh so that's how moderators here deal with people breaking the forum rules? Laugh at the expense of those who are insulted?

Fucking cheerleader.

[Marblehead]

May I get anal here for a minute?

 

"Oh, shit!" Never mind.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Marblehead

[suninmyeyes]

 

suninmyeyes,

yes I know what you mean. I dont want to split hairs either. We might say : I have an anal region, yet I am not my anal region.

We could say that every day if we wanted to, it could help us achieve something wonderful.

If both we and day want to .

This is some crazy s***t , I wish day to assist me not to turn into my anal region.

[Owledge]

My issue with it, for one is that "compassion" in the English language ONLY refers to what the Buddhists call "relative bodhicitta" or "karuna". It never refers to absolute bodhicitta.

 

I'd have an issue if it were otherwise. Because obviously the two things are profoundly different. I'm amazed how someone could get the idea to call that allegedly fully enlightened or spiritually superior phenomenon "compassion" - using a word that is already used for empathic connection based on shared suffering.

 

From my understanding, since there's a reason why life on the physical plane exists, the 'regular' kind of compassion is fully capable of alleviating suffering. It creates heart-opening and love. What more do you need? So-called "true compassion" sounds like part of the escapist agenda of glorifying the path to nirvana. (Especially if it is used as a replacement. Trying to practice 'real' compassion without having mastered 'ordinary' compassion?) You spend all your life trying to reach the state of nirvana and if you actually achieve it, you are greeted with uncontrollable laughter and amusement because you were The One all along. The whole point was observing the path you took towards achieving the goal. Reaching the goal has no effect.

And those who become missionaries, trying to get others to reach nirvana, too, they might be like people searching for caviar to feed the world with, while others out there are more skillful, providing loving kindness en masse.

 

@turtle shell

Did you try an analgesic?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Owledge

[Sanzon]

I may be slow to understand, but the bulk of this thread is to me quite theoretical & technical. For my intellectual inclusion, would those with fine lines & distinctions expand upon the ideas presented with examples, illustrations and analogies of it put to use so that I may be further able to understand your points

Edited January 20, 2013 by Sanzon

[sati]

In the prajnaparamita practice of Buddhism, knowledge is synonymous with ignorance, thus real compassion is not arrive at through knowledge, but uncovering that which is beyond knowledge. Right Actions, although important, are relative.

 

For example, consider the Lojong,...there is the Absolute Lojong, and the Relative. Although the Relative gives a foundation for understanding the Absolute, they do not, by themselves uncover the Absolute. Same with the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Path. The 4 Noble Truths, which in one sentence is: that suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are, cannot be realized by living the (relative) 8 Fold Path along,...it is merely a beginning.

 

If there was only one turning of the wheel of Dharma (Theravada), our predicament would be dire. For myself, there is no goal to secure a better place in my next life,...my goal as it were, is to wake up in this one. That doesn't mean I negate the 8 Fold Path, but merely don't focus on it. I'm already aware of Right view, attention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration,...or moreso, when I am not. Thus my focus is on the 4 Noble Truths, and seeing the world as it is, which is not about the 8 Fold Path.

 

Again,...the 4 Noble Truths are Absolute,....the 8 Fold Path is Relative.

 

 

Actually the Fourth Noble Truth is the Eightfold Path. Taking the Four Noble Truths without the Eighfold Path is 4 minus 1 : 3.

 

In Theravada tradition, there is already the distinction between relative truth and absolute truth which are linked to two levels of practice. The lower is based on intellect and leads to mundane (lokiya in Pali) accomplishment (good future rebirths) and the higher is based on practice-realization and leads to supramundane (lokuttara in Pali) accomplishment (Nibbana)

 

When it comes to Eightfold Path: in the Maha-Cittarisaka Sutta , these two levels are clearly explained.

 

We could find some differences between Theravada and others schools but not about this, and not about Emptiness either.

 

sati

[Marblehead]

Hi Sanzon,

 

I accept the offer to rephrase:

 

Be nice and kind whenever you can because it is the 'right' thing to do.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Marblehead

[Aaron]

I just worry that people who are too involved in lofty philosophies on the concept of compassion actually show little of it in real life. When a kid skins their knee or person has a flat tire, do you offer sympathy and help or spend time considering various sutras, karmic consequences and absolute vs relative?

 

 

 

 

I don't understand this. Yes, you can get better at things when you practice them. But compassion doesn't seem that hard. Keep an open heart and it tends to flow naturally. Maybe you won't be perfect at it, but even a little bit helps, showing an effort goes a long way.

 

You don't have to raise the concept onto a pedestal, you have to lower it to the ground and keep it on hand. Don't intellectualize it, do it, show it.

 

 

What is an open heart, but awareness? What is a compassionate act? The society that we live in debates compassion, with one side saying that helping others is hurting them and the other saying not helping them is hurting them. Compassion is a very simple idea, but the fact is we've been raised so far from this ideal that understanding it on the innate level you ascribe to is impossible and idealistic.

 

If we could just wake up one day with an open heart and just be compassionate, there wouldn't have been the need for books such as the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Heart Sutra, Holy Bible, etc., we would just naturally behave compassionately. Now the secret is that we really don't need to these books, we just need to start being compassionate, but the fact of the matter is that very few of us start off with the degree of empathy needed to practice compassion as virtue, rather than just a moralistic act (which is what the books I mentioned are teaching).

 

Compassion should be a high virtue, in other words an act done out of empathy for another's suffering, however even then one should understand what actions harm and benefit others, rather than just doing what "feels" right. This is the problem I have with your rendition, because one can cause a lot more harm than good acting "compassionately" if they don't understand the right actions that need to be taken. This is akin to sending a psychopath to priest for treatment, rather than a psychologist. You need to understand the problem as much as you can before addressing it.

 

For instance if a child is being swept away by a flood, the compassionate thing may be for the mother to jump in to the water to save the child, but if you know that in all likelihood she will die as well as the child, do you stop the mother from jumping in? Or maybe you jump in to save the child instead? Is this still compassion if you are dying for the sake of a child who most likely can't be saved? That is why I say compassion means skillful action. That is why I say it requires awareness and practice, not just impulse.

 

Aaron

[Owledge]

@Aaron

Good elaboration, although the problem still persists: If compassion is a thing of the heart, then bringing skillful action into the mix subjects it to a mind-based control instance. It's the classical attempt of the mind to control and thus pervert things. Compassion in itself is pure. It does not look at the outcome. That's the mind. The mind can improve the outcome, but it can also ruin it, and since there's chaos in the universe, it's a dangerous game, especially when the mind starts to believe it knows all the outcomes. That's why I emphasize the importance of not assuming that both things inherently belong together. To me, "Compassion means skillful action" is a badly worded philosophy, approach, strategy.

 

Take CPR for example. People are told they should do it, even when there's a risk that due to their unskillfulness they might break a rib.

But imagine you do CPR and break ribs in a severe way that cause internal bleeding, and only a minute after, the ambulance arrives, and while they have no problem getting the oxygen flowing again, the rib damage poses a severe problem. Maybe add another pre-existing unknown health condition into the mix. The outcome is that not doing CPR would have had the better outcome. But how could you have known?

All these questions don't touch compassion. Compassion is not afraid of doing the 'wrong' thing. The act of compassion itself might be all that is needed to help someone. All strategic considerations are fear-based.

And while one COULD call relieving people from their suffering fear-based for the actor, I think the important distinction is that compassionate action is not anti-fear, but pro-love. If you do it out of fear of more suffering, it's not compassion. You do it for the good feeling that the act itself creates in you and others. As I said, it is heart-opening. The simple gesture signaling you that someone else cares for you is very powerful.

[Sanzon]

Hi Sanzon,

 

I accept the offer to rephrase:

 

Be nice and kind whenever you can because it is the 'right' thing to do.

Thanks Marblehead, I said I'm slow, but not that slow. Edited January 20, 2013 by Sanzon

[Marblehead]

Thanks Marblehead, I said I'm slow, but not that slow.

Hehehe. Just trying to help.

[Aetherous]

Insert compassion where it says "faith"...

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

- James 2:14-17, NIV

[Marblehead]

Valid comparison.

[Seth Ananda]

In the prajnaparamita practice of Buddhism, knowledge is synonymous with ignorance, thus real compassion is not arrive at through knowledge, but uncovering that which is beyond knowledge. Right Actions, although important, are relative.

 

For example, consider the Lojong,...there is the Absolute Lojong, and the Relative. Although the Relative gives a foundation for understanding the Absolute, they do not, by themselves uncover the Absolute. Same with the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Path. The 4 Noble Truths, which in one sentence is: that suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are, cannot be realized by living the (relative) 8 Fold Path along,...it is merely a beginning.

 

If there was only one turning of the wheel of Dharma (Theravada), our predicament would be dire. For myself, there is no goal to secure a better place in my next life,...my goal as it were, is to wake up in this one. That doesn't mean I negate the 8 Fold Path, but merely don't focus on it. I'm already aware of Right view, attention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration,...or moreso, when I am not. Thus my focus is on the 4 Noble Truths, and seeing the world as it is, which is not about the 8 Fold Path.

 

Again,...the 4 Noble Truths are Absolute,....the 8 Fold Path is Relative.

 

"Relative and absolute,

These the two truths are declared to be.

The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,

For the intellect is grounded in the relative." Shantideva

 

Focusing on relative compassion will never lead to the uncovering of absolute compassion. There is nothing wrong with providing relative compassion, however, not only is relative compassion is significantly enhance by understanding that it is not absolute (real) compassion, but encourages the uncovering of real compassion.

 

Again,...According to the Bodhisattva of Compassion, real compassion arises from seeing the world as it really is. Without seeing the world as it really is, real compassion is impossible.

Thanks for this. Nice to see some personal elements in there.

I would like to add that I agree that ultimate Bodhichitta or compassion comes from seeing the world as it is, but i want to add that seeing the world as it is, includes seeing people and oneself, as they are.

Empty and dependently Originating, emeshed causality textures.

 

What the experience of this blatantly shows, is that people have no choice whatsoever about what they 'are' in a given moment. If you or I had had all their experiences, with their genetic background, surrounded by all their lifes circumstances instead of having had our own, then we would be doing exactly what they are doing.

 

Seeing this gives a taste of real compassion. Any defensiveness instantly vanishes. My normal irritation at what I consider 'stupidity' is suddenly gone. If they argue, they certainly would not get called 'spoillers' or anything else, as I am clearly seeing the emptiness of self, right there in front of me. Of course they will do exactly what their make up demands, and so does everyone else. I am not going to feel bad about any of their reactions, or try to punish them for it.

But i am going to feel compassion, for they really are {or think they are} stuck within an illusion, held together by believing lies and false assumptions.

 

And this is where Skilful Means comes in. Knowing that who they think they are is just the result of a series of interdependent elements and circumstances, its not really possible to get into an argument. - at least an argument that has that sticky defensive energy.

I have only been in that state a few times, but one thing I can say about it is that my communication was sublime.

 

I could see how that person 'fit together' which allowed me to ask them questions, listen, and then at crucial moments speak, prompting an awareness of their condition, or helping them to see a Lie that had previously bound them.

I was able to say the exact right thing in those moments.

That reflection then becomes part of the gamut of dependently tied events that make up their relative existence, but it will stand out to them, and at points will raise its head and ask bigger questions.

 

People have said a year or two later, that they cherish that conversation, that it feels really clear or 'vivid' in their mind, and that they still think about it regularly, or get annoyed by it sometimes... lol. Its all minor transformations or 'experiences' within the relative, but it leads 'people' within the relative to seek something more.

 

Enjoy. Seth

[Jetsun]

When the Chinese invaded Tibet and the homes of many of the masters who had realised ultimate compassion and ultimate Bodhicitta it was mostly the Christian's with their relative unenlightened compassion who went to their aid and clothed and fed them as refugees. After this experience many of these masters now openly say that Buddhists can learn a lot from Christians about the nature of compassion, the Dalai Lama even says on his website to Buddhists that they can learn from Christian compassion. Not that that sort of compassion is Christian as such it is just the natural urge and action to try to help those in need.

[Seth Ananda]

When the Chinese invaded Tibet and the homes of many of the masters who had realised ultimate compassion and ultimate Bodhicitta it was mostly the Christian's with their relative unenlightened compassion who went to their aid and clothed and fed them as refugees. After this experience many of these masters now openly say that Buddhists can learn a lot from Christians about the nature of compassion, the Dalai Lama even says on his website to Buddhists that they can learn from Christian compassion. Not that that sort of compassion is Christian as such it is just the natural urge and action to try to help those in need.

Nice. Any work towards alleviating relative suffering is a good thing. People suffering less can spend more time on the big issues.

[Owledge]

When the Chinese invaded Tibet and the homes of many of the masters who had realised ultimate compassion and ultimate Bodhicitta it was mostly the Christian's with their relative unenlightened compassion who went to their aid and clothed and fed them as refugees. After this experience many of these masters now openly say that Buddhists can learn a lot from Christians about the nature of compassion, the Dalai Lama even says on his website to Buddhists that they can learn from Christian compassion. Not that that sort of compassion is Christian as such it is just the natural urge and action to try to help those in need.

If this is not just a narrow view on things, but to any degree representative, it would draw a sad picture about the state of Buddhism. It would also confirm what I'm trying to say.

 

@Seth

I think you took a detour without changing your view. The point was not that relative compassion served the goal of helping the masters continue to pursue the 'real thing'. The masters were on the experiencing end of compassion. They felt it. It made them appreciate it. It is very powerful, since it acts on the physical plane. Very mundane. Very solid.

 

"People suffering less can spend more time on the big issues." - And I thought suffering IS the big issue. ;-)

Edited January 20, 2013 by Owledge

[Marblehead]

And I thought suffering IS the big issue. ;-)

It is a big issue for many. Denounce it!!!!

[Apech]

The Christian idea of charity and the Buddhist view of compassion are completely different. Just thought I'd say this cos this thread seems to have decided they are the same thing.

[Seth Ananda]

@Seth

I think you took a detour without changing your view. The point was not that relative compassion served the goal of helping the masters continue to pursue the 'real thing'. The masters were on the experiencing end of compassion. They felt it. It made them appreciate it. It is very powerful, since it acts on the physical plane. Very mundane. Very solid.

 

"People suffering less can spend more time on the big issues." - And I thought suffering IS the big issue. ;-)

Sure. I am all for cultivating relative compassion. I was speaking to the thought that some seem to have, that only the Absolute level is worth any time... For those people, alleviating some life problems can free up more time

[Aetherous]

I don't think that the Buddhist view (of relative bodhicitta, karuna, loving kindness, etc) is much different. But I'm open to hearing why you and others think it is...

[Owledge]

For those people, alleviating some life problems can free up more time

Some time for exploring higher concepts like real compassion - if you're not content with having life problems alleviated. And then eventually you might arrive at the same conclusion that Lao Tzu did: Live a humble and happy, down-to-earth life. A bit like the monk who studied and practiced a lifetime in a monastery and finally was overcome by regrets of not having lived an 'ordinary' life.

The pursuit of higher goals should only be done if you enjoy the journey. If you have a problem with the idea of being left empty-handed when you SUCCEED, better forget it. ... If you can't laugh about the cosmic joke, that is.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Owledge

[suninmyeyes]

The Christian idea of charity and the Buddhist view of compassion are completely different. Just thought I'd say this cos this thread seems to have decided they are the same thing.

This reminded how I have heard Tibetan Buddhists (from Tibet) discussing among themselves Jesus and his dying on the cross for others and thought it to be outrageously ridicilous ..

I dont share their opinion , actually I have no opinion on that except that at different time and circumstances , different action may be required.

 

 

 

 

It would be also interesting to hear what does compassion mean to everyone regardless and why and when ?

How about regular being compassionate eventualy prevades our life ? Compassion as a path?

[thelerner]

What is an open heart, but awareness? What is a compassionate act? The society that we live in debates compassion, with one side saying that helping others is hurting them and the other saying not helping them is hurting them. Compassion is a very simple idea, but the fact is we've been raised so far from this ideal that understanding it on the innate level you ascribe to is impossible and idealistic.

 

If we could just wake up one day with an open heart and just be compassionate, there wouldn't have been the need for books such as the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Heart Sutra, Holy Bible, etc., we would just naturally behave compassionately. Now the secret is that we really don't need to these books, we just need to start being compassionate, but the fact of the matter is that very few of us start off with the degree of empathy needed to practice compassion as virtue, rather than just a moralistic act (which is what the books I mentioned are teaching).

 

Compassion should be a high virtue, in other words an act done out of empathy for another's suffering, however even then one should understand what actions harm and benefit others, rather than just doing what "feels" right. This is the problem I have with your rendition, because one can cause a lot more harm than good acting "compassionately" if they don't understand the right actions that need to be taken. This is akin to sending a psychopath to priest for treatment, rather than a psychologist. You need to understand the problem as much as you can before addressing it.

 

For instance if a child is being swept away by a flood, the compassionate thing may be for the mother to jump in to the water to save the child, but if you know that in all likelihood she will die as well as the child, do you stop the mother from jumping in? Or maybe you jump in to save the child instead? Is this still compassion if you are dying for the sake of a child who most likely can't be saved? That is why I say compassion means skillful action. That is why I say it requires awareness and practice, not just impulse.

 

Aaron

Forget We, forget the Freakin world. Just show compassion, consider it a low easy virtue. If you see an alien child swept away in a flood and there's a ufo over head and powerlines to the right, what should you do?. My advice. It ain't going to happen. Don't worry if there's gun pointed at your head and you must choose between the naked nun or well dressed republican hippie. Its not going to happen.

 

YOU Aaron, forgetting what you think the world knows, do YOU know compassion?? Are you filled with unease when you demonstrate it? Does it take years of skillful means akin to a shaolin temple to do simple acts of kindness? I don't think so.

 

We don't need to over analyze it. Think about the last few compassionate things you've done. Were they so hard? and if you can't come up with the last few acts of kindness, then your homework is to Look for opportunities and Do them. Its freakin easy. Go out of your way to help others. Look for opportunities. Make a few people smile each day.

 

and if you do, you know what it will mean for your odds of enlightenment?

Not a freakin thing, but do it anyway.

Edited January 21, 2013 by thelerner