"Compassion means skillful action" - huh?

[Owledge]

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.

I couldn't tell you my last acts of kindness. I don't keep track of them.

[skydog]

Is compassion just an idea a duality

 

And the idea its an idea is also a duality

 

From the place of non duality is of importance, but even that creates a duality

[Apech]

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?

 

Well you've just opened up a whole new area there I think. I wouldn't agree with the idea that jesus dying on the cross was ridiculous and I can only think that those Tibetans had not had the story properly explained to them. Why Jesus died on the cross and in what sense it was done for others ... makes sense in a theistic tradition perhaps.

 

I don't think anyone would quarrel with the idea that helping others is a good thing generally (generally in TBs terminology means sometimes and not mostly ) ... but the purpose of Buddhist compassion and the paramitas (generosity and so on) is to awaken Buddha-nature in your own being ... because the ultimate benefit you can be to others is to be awakened. If you are not awakened but still locked into an ordinary mind then you might be able to give to charity and whatever, but your capacity to genuinely help other beings is limited to the capacity of your confused and unenlightened self. I don't think this idea appears in Christianity - or if it does I have not come across it.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Apech

[Fū Yue]

Is compassion just an idea a duality

 

And the idea its an idea is also a duality

 

From the place of non duality is of importance, but even that creates a duality

 

Compassion is primordial. Only by everything working together in incredible precision does anything work correctly, the very fabric of reality is like an incredible dance where everything is supporting everything else. Bees must all be in harmony for a hive to prosper, and it is due to following the rhythm of nature that life lives long. Veering from the natural way of harmony between inside and outside leads to a swift death.

[thelerner]

I couldn't tell you my last acts of kindness. I don't keep track of them.

Its fine not keep track, but sad if its been so long one can't remember.

 

 

Also, I don't think there needs to be an either/or divide between Buddhist and Western compassion. It may be the combination of both is best. The deep listening, awareness and objectivity of the East, then the taking action, problem solving mindset of the West.

 

Take India, in many the birth place of inspired sacred ideas. Holy men and scripture up the wazoo, but it also suffered crushing poverty, short life span for far too many of its people last century. The solution isn't to become westernized, but to see the poverty as a true problem and work to raise people out of it.

 

If the best and brightest are cloistered, working within there walls, giving only lip service and prayers to the betterment of humanity and teaching poverty and depravation are just maya, illusion, then solutions are neither found or looked for. People suffer.

Edited January 21, 2013 by thelerner

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[Vmarco]

The second direction that it can be taken, which I do not agree with, is that the realization of the illusions of ego makes it the responsibility of the realized to actively force those who are unrealized to abandon their illusions. This direction says that no matter what the fallout is along the way, there is no higher purpose but to make others see the truth. This obviously has no element of wu wei to it, and no sense of harmony with existence, and as such holds no resonance for me.

In the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Turnings_of_the_Wheel_of_Dharma

that is, most Buddhists with the exception of the Theravadans,...those who have realized, or are in the process of realizing, the way things are, which is to say, the real Suchness of reality, often take a vow to postpone their own enlightenment until all sentient beings are liberated from their sentience.

 

As I see it, an authentic compassionate being, that is to say, one who sees the world as it is (try reading the Heart Attack Sutra by Karl Brunnholzl for futher info), are naturally intolerant of anything that steps between sentient beings and their direct experience. Such righteous intolerance is very much in harmony with humanity,...although those who believe other will surely take offense.

 

"Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their beliefs." Lemuel K. Washburn

 

You seem to suggest that there is a higher purpose than speaking the truth? And that speaking the truth is somehow not wu wei.

 

Why would Lao Tzu say, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth." Is one not suppose to recognize the false?

 

Lao Tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?"

 

Viator appears to suggest that is not wu wei. That we should remain indifferent to suffering and the cause of suffering.

My question would be,...why are you afraid of the truth?

[Vmarco]

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 disagree. Those who point to the hghest levels of compassion have already exceeded the limits of relative compassion.

 

This is partially why the most compassionate beings in history discuss things (as in the Heart Sutra), such as how a truly compassionate being sees.

 

"The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." The Way of the Bodhisattva

 

"If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" HH Dalai Lama

Edited January 21, 2013 by Vmarco

[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.

I think you may be the one over analyzing this. my point is that there is a distinction between being compassionate for moral reasons such as Christian or Judaic ideology, and doing it simply because it is the natural thing to do. The irony is that I can remember you telling us how you felt the need to instruct your children in right and wrong but you seem to be contradicting that now by saying that compassion isn't something that needs to be taught but rather it is something that we can naturally act upon. If that's true then why did you need to teach your children right and wrong? an even more important question is whether or not your lessons in right and wrong have somehow caused your children to be incapable of acting intuitively compassionate. perhaps it's the notion of teaching right and wrong that prevents us from being able to understand on an intuitive level what compassion really is? So when I say that we need to unlearn in order to learn compassion again that's what I'm talking about.

 

Aaron

Edited January 21, 2013 by Aaron

[Vmarco]

This is an important point to keep in mind. You may not realize it yet, but it goes to support what I have said. To be sure you are really considering this point, let me revisit it. Those who believe other will surely take offense. Which is to say they will withdraw from the source of the message they perceive to cause them pain. They will avoid the message. The message delivered in too direct a manner will actually function at counter purposes to the intention because of the state of the audience. This is not "skillful action". This is attempting to hammer finishing nails with a jackhammer when a ball peen hammer would suffice and do neater work.

 

Yes,...that is an excellent point. In my interpersonal life I do so instinctually,...on an impersonal forum the activity is different, because I personally know some here who are reading, and often respond through an on-forum means.

 

Quite often in personal contacts, those who are not disposed to truth, will fall asleep or otherwise be distracted. Internet forums like TTB offer a wholly different dynamic. Here I do not have to walk away from a disinterested person.

 

And yes, your post indicates that you do have a fear of truth, and a compelling need to enable those also in fear. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder,...truth is not a personal thing,...truth is not relative. Those are notions of those who fear truth.

 

Only someone unaware of a single truth would espouse stuff like "Just because you feel your perspective is more accurate does not make your "truth" more valid." What you're talking about is belief, not truth. All belief is false,...it is the inherent nature of belief to be false.

 

A Buddhist said, "We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient…A child is born in a society, and a society is already there with its fixed rules, regulations, behaviors and moralities which the child has to learn.

When he will grow he will become false. Then children will be born to him, and he will help make them false, and this goes on and on. What to do?"

 

What I get from your posts is that you perceive the Tao through a relative point of view. The Tao is not relative.

 

Lao Tzu said, "the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go."

 

The 6 senses cannot perceive truth. I have no desire for you or anyone to believe that the 6 senses cannot perceive truth,...I'n suggesting that you prove it is not truth.

 

A New Age purveyor said, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

It could be said that you do not fear the truth,...for how can one fear something that they never been exposed to. But you must admit that you fear the recognition that everything you thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

There is actually very little discussion on this planet about truth. I'd love if there was,...and can imagine that awesome dialogues that would manifest.

 

If you really believe you have no fear of truth,...you may enjoy this:

[三江源]

The question is, if a person has not even glimpsed what truth could possibly be, and live with their own level of truth, and know that their sense of truth has grown.. and maybe even are able to acknowledge that their own sense of truth is limited..but cant even conceive of a state in which truth could be non - relative...

 

the leap of mind required to accept that truth could be a unity without shades of this and that , but actually a position of wholeness, a place of no opposite with no need for interpretation..

from where would that leap of mind come?

 

What would a dialogue about truth look like? Can you write a fictional sketch of what that would look like, VMarco? When you imagine it, what is the content?

[三江源]

But you must admit that you fear the recognition that everything you thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless.

Is this a fear?

 

or a default setting that runs along the framework set up for it... would re-wiring have to take place on a very fundamental level for such a radical perceptual overturning. I feel like there is design fault here in me which cannot consistently convert the meaningful to the meaningless. At least not at anything other than the speed of a very slow snail.

 

the perception of reality is wired in to how my brain works.

 

Isnt this what dark room meditations and fasting and so on are for.. to try to shift the neural set up to a different setting?

[konchog uma]

 

 

Is this the problem ,really, with the above statement by VMarco? Is anybody willing to see the truth in it?

 

compassion and realization of suchness/noncontrivance/emptiness is a well known relationship. I don't think anyone who studies the buddha-dharma has a problem with that statement. It is known and accepted that as one's realization grows, so does the natural outgrowth of their compassion for others.

 

My problem was always that vmarco was saying that without emptiness real compassion is impossible. Its as if he is trying to imply that there is his version of compassion, and then everything else is just what Trungpa Rinpoche called idiot compassion (or compassion without skillful means, as illustrated by taomeow's story about the fainting husband). My bone to pick with this dubious definition of compassion was confirmed by my teacher, who said that compassion is possible for people who haven't realized emptiness, and that the only compassion that hinged on that realization was unconditional compassion. I can only assume that thats what Thurman was trying to translate when he chose to use the word "real" and that vmarco, in his seeming need to rant about something that we were all wrong about, picked up on that phrase and turned it into an ongoing diatribe about how his compassion was the result of his being grounded in realization of emptiness (which is completely doubtful) and our compassion was all wrong because we weren't bodhisattvas. That kind of ego posturing is what i, and others were speaking out against. Not the claim that compassion and emptiness are related. They are most certainly related, just not in the way vmarco claims they are.

 

if i saw vmarco rant about this stuff on buddhist forums i would feel differently about him, but of course he would immediately be discredited by those who understand the dharma, and actually have achieved realization.

 

hope that clarifies things.

[Birch]

My take on this is that there is marked difference between 'compassion' coming from an 'I know best what's best for you' when the latter is clearly mistaken, an ego-ploy or some other kind of distorted 'relative' position locking you and the other into a strange inequality or disharmony; and compassion that doesn't stem from those. Both kinds might well be relative but one of them is problem-filled.

My assumption here is that absolute compassion would just be compassion, period. But it looks like VMarco is suggesting that for the unenlightened, it's never possible.

[Owledge]

Why is noone bothered by this part?:

 

I disagree. Those who point to the hghest levels of compassion have already exceeded the limits of relative compassion.

 

This is partially why the most compassionate beings in history discuss things (as in the Heart Sutra), such as how a truly compassionate being sees.

 

"The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." The Way of the Bodhisattva

 

"If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" HH Dalai Lama

 

Claiming that people who talk about the idea of "true compassion" are above common compassion - wow. Sounds a lot like an intellectual avoidance strategy. Like talking about love with the desire to become a renowned love expert because one is incapable of feeling love.

 

Also, the word true/truely is so often used as a filler, and arbitrary distinction based on a belief of self-righteousness. It is so easy when habitually disagreeing with other views to just call the own one "true". And quoting others using that rhetoric to support the own view is even less impressive.

When it is claimed that so-called true compassion can be practiced while acting in a way that has the effect of a lack of so-called relative compassion, I am very skeptical. It is immensely useful as such a convenient excuse.

The way the Dalai Lama handles the Shugden issue shows me that he is not a paragon of wisdom and compassion. He believes he is right, so he considers any means he chooses as appropriate.

The universe self-regulates this unwise behavior by supplying the Dalai Lama with an increasing number of opponents.

 

And for the matter of absolute truth: Based on my own experiences, the only absolute truth might be that there is no absolute truth. On a deep level (probably beyond subconscious) our beliefs create reality and thus truth. Truth is whatever we make it to be on a unified level. No point arguing about 'higher' truths, since that is just part of the process of creating truth.

Accordingly, it might be that the so-called "true compassion" is just a compassion rooted in a high level of reality where whatever is believed becomes truth. That's why I advocate practicing the good old compassion based on mutually agreed principles. It has less potential for delusion.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Owledge

[Vmarco]

The question is, if a person has not even glimpsed what truth could possibly be, and live with their own level of truth, and know that their sense of truth has grown.. and maybe even are able to acknowledge that their own sense of truth is limited..but cant even conceive of a state in which truth could be non - relative...

 

the leap of mind required to accept that truth could be a unity without shades of this and that , but actually a position of wholeness, a place of no opposite with no need for interpretation..

from where would that leap of mind come?

 

What would a dialogue about truth look like? Can you write a fictional sketch of what that would look like, VMarco? When you imagine it, what is the content?

 

Yes,...what would such a dialogue look like? Like Avalokitesvara and Buddha in the Shurangama sutra?

 

At this level, I'm suggesting what if sentience, that which we hold most dear, is a liar.

 

René Descartes, concerning the senses, articulated, "All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once."

 

That may be a good place to start. Lao Tzu and Buddha implied the same thing.

 

Lao Tzu said (as I post over and over), "the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go."

 

Lao Tzu said, "the only way to understand [the Tao] is to directly experience it."

 

And again and again, to the chagrin of many, I say be intolerant of everything that steps between you and every sentient being, and yours and their direct experience.

 

Yes,...most believe that their personal truth is the truth. Was Lao Tzu abidding by wei wu by saying it is not?

 

What would a world that is interested in truth look like? Perhaps as implied by the Kalachakra.

[Marblehead]

Why is noone bothered by this part?:

Because I have seen it so many times already and disagreed with it the first time I saw it and now simply ignore it. I do oftentimes try to simplify my life.

[deci belle]

Owledge. Please. This understanding of compassion of yours is utterly arrested in terms of convention.

 

You can aspire to this. But do not attempt to make this position the standard.

 

Selflessness has nothing to do with your limited understanding. True compassion has no basis in emotionalism and is not relative. When people see their nature, they can begin to participate in selfless realization of enlightening being.

 

 

 

And for the matter of absolute truth: Based on my own experiences, the only absolute truth might be that there is no absolute truth. On a deep level (likely beyond subconscious) our beliefs create reality and thus truth. Truth is whatever we make it to be on a unified level. No point arguing about 'higher' truths, since that is just part of the process of creating truth.

 

This is preposterous. What mr V is referring to is within the province of the inconceivable which is not only not created, it is beyond process. Please do not project the absolute based on the relative.

 

Yes, the absolute (truth) is that there is no truth. But this can only be a point of ignorant contention if you yourself have not seen your nature. At the present time, your entire argument is specious.

 

In other words, not only is your contention not helping any possibility of resolution because of a complete ignorance of your own mind (which has no belief of any kind sticking to it), your grasp of what mr V has laid out in what you quoted in nonexistent.

 

You insist on separating your limited conditioned emotionalist sense of compassion from everyday ordinary skillful means employed by anyone capable of selfless (nonpsychological) enlightening activity.

 

Just because this subtle operation is beyond your present capabilities is no reason to drag skillful means down to your level of understanding just so you can cut it up.

 

The master does no cutting precisely because there is nothing to cut up.

 

Now cut it out.❤

 

 

 

 

ed note: change "not" to "no" in last line

Edited January 21, 2013 by deci belle

[Jetsun]

Why is noone bothered by this part?:

 

 

Claiming that people who talk about the idea of "true compassion" are above common compassion - wow. Sounds a lot like an intellectual avoidance strategy. Like talking about love with the desire to become a renowned love expert because one is incapable of feeling love.

 

Also, the word true/truely is so often used as a filler, and arbitrary distinction based on a belief of self-righteousness. It is so easy when habitually disagreeing with other views to just call the own one "true". And quoting others using that rhetoric to support the own view is even less impressive.

When it is claimed that so-called true compassion can be practiced while acting in a way that has the effect of a lack of so-called relative compassion, I am very skeptical. It is immensely useful as such a convenient excuse.

The way the Dalai Lama handles the Shugden issue shows me that he is not a paragon of wisdom and compassion. He believes he is right, so he considers any means he chooses as appropriate.

The universe self-regulates this unwise behavior by supplying the Dalai Lama with an increasing number of opponents.

 

And for the matter of absolute truth: Based on my own experiences, the only absolute truth might be that there is no absolute truth. On a deep level (probably beyond subconscious) our beliefs create reality and thus truth. Truth is whatever we make it to be on a unified level. No point arguing about 'higher' truths, since that is just part of the process of creating truth.

Accordingly, it might be that the so-called "true compassion" is just a compassion rooted in a high level of reality where whatever is believed becomes truth. That's why I advocate practicing the good old compassion based on mutually agreed principles. It has less potential for delusion.

 

I wouldn't regard the Dalai lama as being on the same page as Vmarco on this issue, essentially if you read all the Dalai Lama's books and watch his speeches he is always talking about the value and importance of basic kindness, warmth and compassion, it is almost an obsession of his so don't assume he says that the only thing which matters is ultimate compassion, rather he talks about the importance of basic regular compassion more than almost anyone else on the planet.

[Vmarco]

I would certainly be interested to know which portion of my post indicated the fear of truth specifically. That is a broad and general claim, and indicates that you feel you have a better understanding of my state of consciousness than I myself have, which would be an interesting feat, even for a self proclaimed bodhisattva.

Only someone so steeped in a belief system that they were unable to function outside of it would espouse the existence of a single exclusive universal truth but offer no evidence of it. You say that it cannot be experienced with the six senses, why do you believe it to be true? Why do you believe all else is false?

 

"Contradictions in perspective among those Seeing the profound do not occur" Taranatha

 

I have no interest in expressing my point of view. My point of view is irrelevant. I do not believe in any absolute truth, because absolute truth cannot be believed.

 

For Avalokitesvara, her Gateway was through hearing,...she said, "As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated." Avalokitesvara

 

Although everyone is different because of particular genetic and environmental imprinting, the way to uncover truth demands a certain level of recognizing what is false. First, your posts suggest that you are not even aware of a basic Taoist idea that there are 6 senses. As I am not a teacher, you'll have to research that for yourself, if you ever want to uncover a truth.

 

From a relative or neurotic point of view, the Tao being in all is interpreted as part of One or Phenomena. This is not however true. "The All" effects its motion from the Tao, but anything in motion is absent of the Tao. If you were aware of a single truth, there would be no argument on this. The Tao is the present, or it could be said, the Tao is in the present,...however, all sentience is in the past. The 6 senses arise from phenomena, and can only view phenomena,...all phenomena is in the past.

 

Prove that wrong,...can you see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or think in the present? No you cannot! It is impossible.

 

The audio in the video mentioned is quite appropriate, in that only those who are seriously interested in truth would continue listening to this Youtube of McKenna's audio book recorded on a Tokyo train. I would agree however that the audio book itself is much better.

[Vmarco]

Claiming that people who talk about the idea of "true compassion" are above common compassion - wow. Sounds a lot like an intellectual avoidance strategy. Like talking about love with the desire to become a renowned love expert because one is incapable of feeling love.

 

And for the matter of absolute truth: Based on my own experiences, the only absolute truth might be that there is no absolute truth. On a deep level (probably beyond subconscious) our beliefs create reality and thus truth. Truth is whatever we make it to be on a unified level. No point arguing about 'higher' truths, since that is just part of the process of creating truth.

 

I said, "Those who point to the highest levels of compassion have already exceeded the limits of relative compassion." How you interpreted that as "Claiming that people who talk about the idea of "true compassion" are above common compassion" is incredible.

 

If you read the context of why that reply was being giving, it may have afforded a better comprehension,...although unlikely.

 

If there is no absolute truth (a common response by those who cling to their personal truth for their identity), then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, and thus an absolute truth.

 

Factually speaking, truth is a frightening thing for most. After the realization of a single truth, a Canadian said:

 

"Waking up is not necessarily pleasant; you get to see why all this time, you chose to sleep.

 

When you wake up the first thing you will see is Reality does not exist for you, you exist for it. Shocking as it is when you let it in, there is rest.

 

You do not have to labor anymore to hold together a reality that does not exist; forcing something to be real that is not real.

 

You and this life you have been living are not real ..

 

In letting it in, even through the shock... pain... shattering, there is rest.

 

Reality is when all you want to know is what is true ...just so that you can let it in and be true.

 

Reality is not a safe place for you - the you that you have created.

 

It is the only place where you would die; where there is no room for your hopes, your dreams.

 

Once you have let it in, once you begin to re-awaken; to let Reality wake you up, nothing can get it out. That is the beginning of your end.

 

Waking up can be much more painful than the agony of your dream, but waking up is real."

 

If you ever get to that level of uncovering, let me know. I'm not a teacher or guru,...I have no desire to help you along your path.

 

As for compassion,...you can invent all the feelings you wish to make it more palatable for your beliefs,...however, if you ever wish to understand compassion as a Bodhisattva, I'd recommend the 'Heart Attack Sutra' by Karl Brunnholzl.

[Owledge]

You insist on separating your limited conditioned emotionalist sense of compassion from everyday ordinary skillful means employed by anyone capable of selfless (nonpsychological) enlightening activity.

 

Just because this subtle operation is beyond your present capabilities is no reason to drag skillful means down to your level of understanding just so you can cut it up.

This is a bit confusing. You throw a lot of labels together and claim I'm doing something which I'm not. You mention "everyday ordinary" in one breath with "nonpsychological enlightened". You blame me for not wanting to combine "limited conditioned" with "enlightened". What I'm doing is much more simple and down-to-earth. Maybe your mind is too much in spiritual philosophy mode and not in language syntax mode.

 

This issue here is preprogrammed to occur when a spiritual philosophy takes a word that already has a meaning and adds "true" to it, making it something else. Compassion and skillful action are seperate things working together, as has obviously been pointed out by several people. There can be compassion without skillful action and there can be skillful action without compassion.

You use a lot of labels showing a certainty about things. What is "emotionalist"? Is it bad? Is "everyday ordinary" selfless action not based on emotion? This is all extremely vague and labeled. Please give a reasoning in clear steps so I can follow your thought process.

[Owledge]

I wouldn't regard the Dalai lama as being on the same page as Vmarco on this issue, essentially if you read all the Dalai Lama's books and watch his speeches he is always talking about the value and importance of basic kindness, warmth and compassion, it is almost an obsession of his so don't assume he says that the only thing which matters is ultimate compassion, rather he talks about the importance of basic regular compassion more than almost anyone else on the planet.

It is far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. That's what I'm saying. The Dalai Lama has political function. Politics and a lot of talking/preaching is a problematic mix.

The statements of him about the Shugden issue that I know of have been almost shockingly unempathic. He creates a social separation and borderline existentially threatening discrimination and talk about it being the right thing like it's the most obvious and self-explanatory thing in the world.

Let me say it this way: ... He's getting old.

 

I'm currently watching the TV show "House MD", and there's a lot of food for thought about this issue. I think it would be delusional to call Dr. House a practitioner of "true compassion" that masks his seeming lack for common empathy. The character is very rich and good for raising awareness of many facets of the human psyche, about belief systems, perpetuation of emotional pain and their effects.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Owledge

[Jetsun]

It is far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. That's what I'm saying. The Dalai Lama has political function. Politics and a lot of talking/preaching is a problematic mix.

The statements of him about the Shugden issue that I know of have been almost shockingly unempathic. He creates a social separation and borderline existentially threatening discrimination and talk about it being the right thing like it's the most obvious and self-explanatory thing in the world.

Let me say it this way: ... He's getting old.

 

Who walks the walk of compassion better than the Dalai Lama? he has had his country taken away and culture destroyed and many of his best friends imprisoned and killed by the Chinese yet he still says he has compassion for them and harbors no resentment. The issue with Shugden is that he found in his research that it is a harmful deity, so out of compassion of trying to protect his people he suggests people don't worship it. As you say it is not easy to live up to the principles you teach.

[Vmarco]

Owledge. Please. This understanding of compassion of yours is utterly arrested in terms of convention.

 

You can aspire to this. But do not attempt to make this position the standard.

 

Selflessness has nothing to do with your limited understanding. True compassion has no basis in emotionalism and is not relative. When people see their nature, they can begin to participate in selfless realization of enlightening being.....

 

You insist on separating your limited conditioned emotionalist sense of compassion from everyday ordinary skillful means employed by anyone capable of selfless (nonpsychological) enlightening activity.

 

 

The master does no cutting precisely because there is nothing to cut up.

 

Now cut it out.❤

 

In addition...

 

First, the term "skillful means" is a western translation of upaya, or expedient means. A Bodhisattva uses expedient means to help liberate sentient beings from their sentience.

 

This idea of upaya in correlation with compassion has become neurotic. One does not somehow develop a knowledge of text book skillful means, and then is able to show compassion. That is empirical nonsense,...that is based on sensual knowledge..

 

Real Compassion only arises through seeing the world as it is. One does not see the world as it is, and then use Skillful or Expediant Means from the world as it is not.

 

Sure,...express mundane compassion wherever applicable,...yet keep in mind, that 6 billion Mother Teresa's will not lift our spiritual predictament up one iota.